for the meeting of wednesday, november 28, 2012 · 2019-12-12 · st john’s college council...

ST JOHN’S COLLEGE COUNCIL AGENDA

For the Meeting of Wednesday, November 28, 2012

Meal at 5:30, Meeting from 6:00 in the Cross Common Room (#108)

1. Opening Prayer

2. Approval of the Agenda

3. Presentation by Guy Prefontaine re: Residence Study

4. Approval of the September 26, 2012 Minutes

5. Business arising from the Minutes

6. New Business a) Awards made in the fall – To be presented by the Scholarship Committee. b) Audited Financial Statements and Auditor’s report – brought forward from September meeting c) Spending of the Sinclair Funds report – To be presented by Bursar and Dean of Residence. d) Budget Summary – To be presented by the Bursar. e) Report from SJC Diocesan Dialogue Committee

7. Reports from Committees, College Officers and Student Council

a) Reports from Committees – Council Executive, Development, Finance & Admin.

b) Report from Assembly

c) Report from College Officers and Student Council i) Warden ii) Dean of Theology and Chaplain iii) Bursar iv) Dean of Studies v) Development Office vi) Dean of Residence vii) Registrar viii) Senior Stick

8. Other Business

9. Adjournment

Council Members: Art Braid; Bernie Beare; Bill Pope; Brenda Cantelo; Bryan Peeler; Christopher Trott; David Ashdown; Dawne McCance; Don Phillips; Heather Richardson; Ivan Froese; Jackie Markstrom; James Ripley; Joan McConnell; John Stafford; June James; Justin Bouchard; Kurt Markstrom; Leonard Kuffert; Peter Brass; Sharon Alward; Sherry Peters; Simon Blaikie; Susan Close; Warren Cariou; William Regehr

ST JOHN’S COLLEGE COUNCIL MINUTES

For the Meeting of Wednesday, September 26, 2012

Present: B. Beare, A. Braid, I. Froese, J. James, B. Regher, B. Peeler, B. Pope, H. Richardson, J. Markstrom, P. Brass, J. Ripley, J. Stafford, J. McConnell, W. Norton, B. Cantelo, L. Kuffert, C. Trott, S. Close, J. Bouchard, H. Krieger, D. Phillips, S. Peters (Secretary)

1. Opening Prayer J. Stafford opened the meeting with prayer.

2. Approval of the Agenda MOTION: That the agenda be approved as distributed. J. Ripley/J. James CARRIED

3. Presentation by College Fellow – Len Kuffert

4. Approval of the April 24, 2012 Minutes MOTION: That the minutes be approved as distributed. D. Phillips/P. Brass CARRIED

5. Business arising from the Minutes None

6. New Business a) Welcome: new and returning members of Council and College Officers – The Chair welcomed

returning members and welcomed new members to Council.

b) Appoint Auditors – MOTION: That BDO Canada be reappointed as the audit firm for St John’s College for 2012-2013 CARRIED

c) Audited Financial Statements and Auditors Report – Item deferred until the November meeting

d) Appoint new Dean of Residence – Warden introduced Justin Bouchard. MOTION: That Council approve Justin Bouchard as Dean of Residence. C. Trott/B. Cantelo CARRIED

e) Motions from Assembly re: Honorary Degrees MOTION: That Council move into closed session. C. Trott/D. Phillips CARRIED MOTION: That Council move out of closed session. C. Trott/J. Stafford CARRIED

Council Minutes November 2012/1

In closed session it was agreed that Verna J. Kirkness will receive an Honorary Doctorate of Canon Law (honoris causa) at Convocation on November 4, 2012. Council was also informed that Janet Hoskins will receive an Honorary Fellowship at Convocation.

f) Update on position re-assignments and upgrades – The Bursar informed Council that the Food Services Manager will now also be responsible for Facilities Management including maintenance issues, and that the Receptionist will now also be acting as event coordinator, coordinating the room bookings, set up and catering orders.

g) Update on building projects – The Bursar presented the list of renovations and maintenance projects:

Building funds available Residual Sinclair funds $165,569 Sinclair Interest while held by Diocese $37,540 Donations for Residence improvements $68,564 Less final cost of washroom reno (previously approved) ($90,602)

Total $181,071 Renovation Projects requiring approval Re-building an electrical panel in Residence $10,804.00 Track lighting in Daily Bread Café $6,257.00 Café floor (concrete) $18,040.00 Residence bed frames & matresses $52,587.00 Residence stair treads $5,000 Residence painting $21,000 Sub-total $113,688 10% contingency $11,368

Total funds requested $125,056 Balance available for further projects $56,015

*Chapel roof repairs cost is $2,000 MOTION: That the renovation and maintenance projects as outlined by the Bursar be approved. CARRIED MOTION: That the minimum expenditure amount requiring approval by Council be increased from $5,000 to $10,000. CARRIED

h) Report from Theological Education sub-group meeting – the Chancellor spoke to a question he had received from the Dialogue sub-committee regarding the position of the Diocese on theological education.

i) Nominations for Finance and Administration Committee MOTION: That Dr. June James, and Dr. George Baldwin are nominated to be members of the committee representing Council CARRIED

6. Reports from Committees, College Officers and Student Council a) Reports from Committees – Council Executive, Development, Finance & Admin.

Council Executive – Met, discussed and set the agenda.

b) Report from Assembly Met and elected new Fellows.

c) Report from College Officers and Student Council

i) Warden – See below ii) Dean of Theology and Chaplain iii) Bursar


See below iv) Dean of Studies See below v) Development Office vi) Dean of Residence vii) Registrar viii) Senior Stick

7. Other Business None

8. Adjournment MOTION: That the meeting be adjourned. C.Trott/J. Bouchard CARRIED

Authentic copy of the minutes is signed by the Chair and Secretary and kept in the Registrar’s Office.

Chair Secretary Date


St John’s College


Warden’s Report to Council

September 26, 2012

It is a long time since we last met with our summer vacations intervening. I will report that I had a week away at the cottage in June and read 4 novels, as well as two weeks at the end of July, spending time with my grandchildren. Despite this time away, it feels as though the College has been busy all summer.

1) I have worked for a good part of the summer completing our application for AUCC membership which has now been submitted.

2) I spoke to students at Kelvin High School at the Kelvin 100 Reunion. 3) I attended 4 of 6 Convocations on behalf of the College as well the Booth University College Convocation and graduation at

St John’s Ravenscourt (as well as my daughter’s graduation from Chiropractic College and my grandson’s graduation from Grade 6!).

4) I represented the College at the Headstart program for new students and their parents on June 2. 5) I preached at St James the Apostle Church and at St Paul’s, Fort Garry. 6) We hosted the Heads of Anglican Colleges here on June 11 and 12. 7) I chaired the committee to hire the new Dean of Residence. 8) I represented the College at the opening Worship of the National Anglican/Lutheran Worship Conference held in our

facilities. 9) Jackie and I represented the College at Bill Norrie’s funeral on July 11. 10) I spoke to the Summer Advantage Student Program on August 1. 11) I have started discussions about involving St John’s in the Children Rising Mentorship program 12) I spent two weeks at a Leadership Development course. 13) I have had a number of meetings with the students and the faculty/staff participants for the Learning Community 14) I represented the College at the Ordination of Michael Bruce on September 13 15) I contributed to a SSHRC Insight Grants Workshop on September 13. 16) I attended the Isbister Society Luncheon and the Homecoming Dinner on behalf of the College 17) I attended the Homecoming Dinner on September 15 18) I was the moderator for the College Debate on September 16


AwardAlfred H. Shephard BursaryAlfred H. Shephard BursaryAlfred H. Shephard BursaryAlfred H. Shephard BursaryAlfred H. Shephard BursaryAlice Cheatley BursaryAll Saints James Brown BursaryArthur Uniacke Chipman Entrance ScholarshipArthur Uniacke Chipman Graduate ScholarshipBeverley and Bishop James Allan BursaryBeverley and Bishop James Allan Bursary

alt Burman/Drewry ScholarshipBurman/Drewry ScholarshipC. C. Landon Memorial Entrance ScholarshipC. E. Kent Memorial Prize FundC.A.E Jensen ScholarshipCanadian Shield Scholarship

no apps Canon Grant Hyslop BursaryCharles Edward Drewry BequestCharles Edward Drewry BequestCharles Edward Drewry BequestCharles Edward Drewry BequestCharles Edward Drewry BequestCharles Edward Drewry BequestCharles Edward Drewry BequestCharles Edward Drewry BequestChildren-of-Clergy BursariesChildren-of-Clergy BursariesChildren-of-Clergy BursariesChildren-of-Clergy BursariesChildren-of-Clergy BursariesChildren-of-Clergy BursariesColin Inkster Memorial AwardColin Inkster Memorial AwardColin Inkster Memorial AwardColin Inkster Memorial Award

alt Dance BursaryDance BursaryDonnie Eastwood Memorial Bursary

alt Donnie Eastwood Memorial BursaryErin Palamar Bursary in NursingFriends of St John's College Scholarships (other yr 1)Friends of St John's College Scholarships (U1)Friends of St John's College Scholarships (U1)Friends of St John's College Scholarships Arts 2Friends of St John's College Scholarships Other 2

Friends of St John's College Scholarships Science 2G. L. Broderson Memorial Award

no award George W Battershill Scholarshipno apps Gordon O. Rothney Scholarship for Study in Modern World Historyno award Helen & Bill Battershill Scholarship

Henry Irvine Graham Entrance ScholarshipHenry Irvine Graham Undergraduate ScholarshipHerbert E. N. Chisholm Prize Fund

no award Hoskins Scholarshipalt Ivan J.R. Deacon and Phyllis E. Deacon Bursary

Ivan J.R. Deacon and Phyllis E. Deacon BursaryJames F. Blewett Memorial Bursary

alt James F. Blewett Memorial BursaryJane Bancroft Memorial Book Prize in FrenchJean and Fred Bancroft PrizeJohn E. Abra Memorial BursaryK. C. Bolton Debating AwardKathleen Burrows Lightcap BursariesKathleen Burrows Lightcap BursariesKevin D. Toyne Prize in Legal PhilosophyLaurence Frank Wilmot Entrance ScholarshipLaurence Frank Wilmot Entrance ScholarshipLaurence Frank Wilmot Entrance ScholarshipLaurence Frank Wilmot Entrance ScholarshipLaurence Frank Wilmot Entrance ScholarshipLovell Clark AwardMalcom Scholarship in Modern Languages (French)Malcom Scholarship in Modern Languages (German)Margaret Waterman Memorial ScholarshipMarion Abra Memorial Bursary

no apps Mary and Patrick Lee Bursaryno apps Michael and Muriel Ewanchuk Bursary

Morgan ScholarshipMorgan ScholarshipMurdith McLean ScholarshipPartners in Education AwardsR. Kelly McGinnis Memorial ScholarshipRoyal Astronomical Society AwardSibyl Inkster Centennial MedalSibyl Inkster Scholarship in EnglishSir John Schultz Scholarship Fund

no award SJC Exchange Student Scholarship Canadian Studiesno award SJC Student Exchange Scholarshipno award SJC Student Travel Fellowship

St John's College Alumni Association ScholarshipSt John's College Students' Association AwardSt John's College Students' Association Award

St John's College Students' Association AwardSt John's College Students' Association AwardSt Luke's AwardSt Luke's AwardSymons Scholarship in Canadian StudiesTed and Edna Poulter ScholarshipsTed and Edna Poulter Scholarships

no apps The Anthony Waterman FellowshipThe Arthur H. Hoole Bursary

no award The James Frost Cross Memorial TrophyThe Rev. Canon and Mrs. Thomas D. Conlin BursaryThe Rev. Canon and Mrs. Thomas D. Conlin BursaryThe Rev. Canon and Mrs. Thomas D. Conlin BursaryThe Rev. Canon and Mrs. Thomas D. Conlin BursaryThe Rev. Canon and Mrs. Thomas D. Conlin Bursary

alt The Wendy Hansen Memorial ScholarshipThe Wendy Hansen Memorial Scholarship

no award Theology Archbishop Walter and Marilyn Jones Bursaryno award Theology Barfoot Memorialno award Theology Bishop John O. Anderson Memorial Bursaryno award Theology Howard Biset Medalno award Theology Jessie Ostberg Legacyno award Theology Laurence Frank Wilmot Entrance Scholarshipno award Theology Mary Vincent Prewer Scholarshipno award Theology RCAF Protestant Chapel Bursaryno award Theology Rev. G. A. Wells Prizeno award Theology St Andrew's ACW Memorial Bursaryno award Theology The Cassap Prizeno award Theology W. J. Condo Memorial

William E. Harrison BursaryAlt William E. Harrison Bursary

William Pickering Prize in Sociology

Last Name First Name AMOUNT Belhassen Naomi 1,100.00$ Hearn Jennifer 1,100.00$ Mitchell Sarah 1,100.00$ Toews Esther 1,100.00$ Wands Susan 1,100.00$ Schoeppner Lydia 950.00$ Adria Joshua 425.00$ MacKinnon Olivia 1,450.00$ Bueddefeld Jill 3,525.00$ Toews Esther 175.00$ Wideman Trevor 500.00$ Hewins AlyxSoriano Katrina 650.00$ Sawatzky Martina 675.00$ Soriano Katrina 725.00$ Rampersad Christie 500.00$ Pawlowska Agnes 1,500.00$

Hussain Oluseyi $250.00Nwamaka Eke $250.00Schoeppner Lydia $250.00Ukpong Emem $300.00Fimibama Ibiene $300.00Nepinak Sherise $300.00Blair Belinda $250.00Clarke Susan $250.00Friesen Caleb 1,030.00$ Friesen Olwyn 1,030.00$ Laidlaw Ian 900.00$ Still Michael 1,030.00$ Woodcroft Jakki 515.00$ Woodcroft Melodi 515.00$ Adria Joshua 600.00$ Cwikla Anna 600.00$ Millions Erin 600.00$ Pawlowska Agnes 600.00$ Soriano CedricSoriano Katrina 700.00$ Critch Michelle 2,050.00$ Tambi AsawoOliveira Cynthia 500.00$ Soriano Katrina 400.00$ Bassey Heather 400.00$ Reimer Vanessa 400.00$ Semchuk Lisa 400.00$ Woods Troy 400.00$

Chung Dominic 400.00$ George Stephanie 775.00$

Still Michael 2,550.00$ Tyomkin Yana 2,250.00$ Hirsch Davis 250.00$

Critch MichelleRidler Collena 825.00$ Bighetty Melody 700.00$ Isfeld RodineRojas Ana 425.00$ Lee Richard 400.00$ Famuyide Omobolanle 1,150.00$ Prest Andrew 175.00$ Masvikeni Acqueline 1,750.00$ Tang Cheng 1,750.00$ Patterson Jillian 200.00$ Budyk Justin 1,000.00$ Humble Tiffany 1,000.00$ Nuttall Paige 1,000.00$ Robinson Kaitlin 1,000.00$ Wood Brett 1,000.00$ Semchuk Lisa 275.00$ Rojas Ana 200.00$ Reimer Vanessa 200.00$ Rojas Ana 600.00$ Hearn Jennifer 925.00$

McVannel Taylor 575.00$ Zukewich Lacey 575.00$ Ramirez Viridiana 975.00$ Persson Jessica 475.00$ Xu Mark 675.00$ Davis Andrea 300.00$ Pries Kerri Ann 125.00$ Bassey Heather 750.00$ Prest Andrew 1,200.00$

Wright Emily 550.00$ Hoft Dustin 550.00$ Persson David 550.00$

Reimer Dustin 650.00$ Wu Yilin 650.00$ Craig Elizabeth 275.00$ Rampton Andrew 275.00$ Adria Joshua 325.00$ Bakhtiari Fatemeh 750.00$ Huang Alice 750.00$

Mitchell Sarah 825.00$

Byagowi Ahmad 2,400.00$ Fischer Claire 2,400.00$ Mitchell Sarah 2,400.00$ Zhang Weijia 2,400.00$ Zhong Fengfa 2,400.00$ Adria JoshuaWideman Trevor 1,675.00$

Abdelkader Nader 2,275.00$ Phiri DalitsoPatterson Jillian 225.00$

Summary to September 30, 2012

2011-12 2011-12 2012-13 2012-13

EXPENDITURES Audited Year to Date Year to Date Budget

Admin & Clerical U of M 535,519 299,556 219,536 508,828

Admin & Clerical SJC 109,053 55,686 53,920 105,404

Academic Programmes 80,659 34,938 2,827 90,778

Conferences & Summer Res 53,489 39,757 49,738 53,115

Residence 250,904 63,753 83,754 265,462

Food Services 987,650 420,135 472,684 975,283

Theology 104,060 50,108 50,266 108,347

Tfr from Theo Accum Surplus to Trust 0

Chapel 17,196 13,563 4,370 19,400

Development/Promotions 123,552 57,897 56,551 131,920

Capital Campaign 0 0

TOTAL EXPENDITURES 2,262,082 1,035,393 993,646 2,258,537

TOTAL EXPEND. (Ex. Theol.) 2,158,022 985,285 943,380 2,150,190

TOTAL EXP (ex.Theol&CapC) 2,158,022 985,285 943,380 2,150,190

REVENUE SOURCES 2011-12 2011-12 2012-13 2012-13

Previous Year Trust Revenue Audited Year to Date Year to Date Budget

Theology 30,775 16,675 27,001 41,100

Chapel 0 20,000 20,000

College Operations 17,286 15,246 16,875 18,830

Academic Programmes 76,185 30,636 0 80,713

Subtotal 124,246 62,557 63,876 160,643

Current Sources

Admin & Clerical U of M 527,398 534,380 509,365 515,277

Annual Giving (unrestricted) 0 0 0 0

Misc. Rev. for College Oper. 33,443 29,741 7,299 10,650

Academic Programs 3,285 98 0 9,550

Conferences & Summer Res. 151,815 151,760 123,943 134,800

Residence 299,039 75,614 73,007 301,077

Food Services 1,098,392 504,938 503,997 1,065,820

Chapel 7,746 6,712 2,418 1,400

Theology 33,539 17,108 9,319 25,250

Development 3,540 3,540 125 0

Total Current Sources: 2,158,197 1,323,891 1,229,473 2,063,824

TOTAL SOURCES 2,282,443 1,386,448 1,293,349 2,224,467

TOTAL SOURCES (ex. Theol.) 2,218,129 1,352,665 1,257,029 2,158,117

" " (ex. Theol.&Cap.C.) 2,218,129 1,352,665 1,257,029 2,158,117

CUR. OP. SURPLUS 20,361 351,055 299,703 -34,070

CUR. OPERATING (ex. Theol.) 60,107 367,380 313,649 7,927

CUR.OPER. (ex.Th.& Cap.Camp.) 60,107 367,380 313,649 7,927

ACCUM. OP. SURPLUS -164,724 189,760 299,703 -34,070

AC. OP. SUR (ex. Theol.) -30,152 272,985 313,649 7,927

Ac.Op.Sur (ex.Th.&Cap.Camp.) 73,567 376,704 313,649 7,927

St. John’s College Student Residence Study November 28, 2012

1GPPArchitecture Inc.ft3 Architecture Landscape Interior Design St John’s College Student Residence Study

Table of ConTenTS:

Definition of Assignment

Site Assessment

Site Options

Building Assessment

Space Program

Order of Magnitude Capital Construction Budget

Redevelopment Strategies

Associated Order of Magnitude Capital Construction Budget per Re-Development Strategy

Appendix A - Precedent & Comparable Examples

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0


DefiniTion of aSSignmenT:The current student residential complex, located along the North East limits of the St. John’s College Campus was originally built as a men’s residence in the late 1950s. In the summer of 1959, a women’s residential wing was added. Since their inception, both have served their purpose admirably. Most recently, the complex underwent remediative works to repair damage done to the basement and foundations which was caused by a ruptured sewer pipe. As a result, a new sub-basement and crawlspace had to be dug out. In that same era, the windows were replaced. Since its inception, the complex has been repaired and maintained to an acceptable standard for a building of its era. That being said, the balance of the structure is showing its age and is in need of attention at several levels, including, but not limited to building envelope integrity as well as specifically addressing the concerns over the potential presence of asbestos and mould.

This study was commissioned to assess the current facility, its potential for renovation and/ or preservation, as well as a variety of growth and redevelopment strategies and options. The study will take into account and be fully cognizant of the role that the residences play in the Campus life at St. John’s. Such residences are an integral part of your community and need to be able to accommodate an ever-growing and ever-changing student demographic. This demographic is to consider Manitoba students, who are typically 1 year older than the age of students in other provinces. It must also consider the return of Grad Students to the residence, visiting academics accommodations as well as families and even students with children.

The current contingent of accommodations includes 3 apartments and 97 single rooms. This split will have to be investigated and adjusted to reflect the new demographic reality of student life as well as accommodate growth on the campus. As well as investigating the occupancy split configuration of rooms (such as 10 room pods sharing one washroom facility, 4 room pods sharing one washroom facility and finally semi-private pods where 2 rooms share one washroom facility) we will investigate the most appropriate configurations.

Along with the room demographic mix, the study will address options such as:• total renovation of the existing building;• partial renovation/ additions; and• a new building scenario.

Each of these scenarios will also be correlated with cost, phasing and implementation. There is a concern that all residences cannot become unavailable at one time or St. John’s will have challenges encouraging students to come back once these spaces become available again. This must be factored into the final decision. Along with retention of students, we will investigate the issue of student residence stay attrition and improve the retention by offering a unique learning and living environment.

Within the context of the University of Manitoba Campus, we understand that while the University is building rooms, they are simply replacing existing ones and not building capacity. Most recently, Pembina Hall and the Arthur Mauro Residences have been completed, but have simply replaced rooms that were demolished. As well, University of Manitoba has just moved forward with the construction of another new residence in Lot D. This new residence is being designed by members of our team and even following it’s opening will not meet current student housing demands. This is a role that St. John’s should play. While planning this expansion, one must also remain aware of the redevelopment of the former Southwood Golf Course and assure the University that St. John’s offering does compete with this new development.

1.0


In fact, by studying the layout and facilities offered by these new residences, we can tailor the new St. John’s residence to provide a unique offering that the other residences don’t offer. In so doing this will help to create a higher demand for the St. John’s residence rooms.

Along with its sense of community, one of the cachets of St. John’s residences is the fact that they are full load stay facilities. A full load facility offers all meals to be included in the residence room rental. This feature makes St. John’s unique and requires that we integrate food services within the project. As well as being unique in this aspect, not providing alternate cooking facilities greatly diminishes appliance cost and reduces maintenance and housekeeping significantly. Other spaces to be considered will include additional common area, recreational space, leisure space, dining and gathering spaces. It is critical to right-size the facilities in order to assure that we do not duplicate services offered at other locations on the campus.

The study will focus on costs and viability, targeting the development of a minimum of LEED Silver certifiable project, whether it be new or redeveloped. This efficiency will do much to assure the comfort of students and the long-term fiscal viability of the project.

Study Components:

1. Site Assessment2. Building Assessment3. Space programming4. Development Options


SiTe aSSeSSmenTThe important first step in studying the subject is an in-depth knowledge of the context.

The commonalities that link all sites being studied are as follows:• allowable building Height: Formerly, the Campus design guidelines stated that no building could be

higher than the top of the Administration Building’s cupola. This requirement has been overwritten by both Pembina Hall and the Arthur Mauro Residences. This requirement has been removed, allowing St. John’s to build as high as 13 stories.

• Design guidelines: While these have previously existed, the responsibility for design purview has been assigned to the External Environment Committee. All stages of design must be presented to this committee for review and acceptance.

• Zoning, Setbacks, limits: While these requirements exist in the City of Winnipeg, the Campus is considered to be its own entity and as such these elements do not apply on Campus. Both the University of Manitoba Campus and the Campus of St. John’s do not have such instruments, so such limits are not applicable.

• Waterway Setbacks: As the Waterway Set-back is a Provincial requirement; we are bound to comply with this regulation. While the guidelines do affect design, and while the submission requirements to Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) are extensive, buildings such as the Wallace Building (to the North East of St. John’s) have proved that they do not stop development. Luckily, the only site that is found to be within the 350 foot designated river setback area is Site Option A. This limit is indicated on the St. John’s Campus Services Map (attached).

• Property lines: While limits and setbacks do not exist, the Campus of St. John’s does have property lines, indicated on the St. John’s Campus Services map. One issue to be aware of is that the College has an agreement with the University where Sifton Road/ Parking Lot A encroaches on College property. This encroachment and associated set-back will have to be considered in certain development scenarios.

• available building Services: Our research has confirmed that not only is chilled water, steam, sewer, land drainage, data and electrical power available to all site options under review, they all have ample capacity to service the maximum scale of the project under consideration. Most recently, gas has been added to the system and is available at the South East corner of the St. John’s Campus.

• above-ground/ overhead and Underground Services: It is confirmed that all services are delivered Underground, so there are no at-grade or overhead limitations.

• Pedestrian Tunnel System: The closest point of access to the University’s Underground pedestrian tunnel system is gained through the existing parking structure located along the south border of our site. There are currently no plans to extend the tunnel system any further.

• flooding/ Drainage/ back-up issues: There are no longer any such issues particular to St. John’s Campus. The existing flood/ drainage/ back-up issues are common to the entire University Campus and do not limit development on the St. John’s site.

• Construction access: As the limits to construction access are based upon hours of operation rather than areas of construction, the limits are common to all sites under consideration and should not cause an impact. That said, the obvious preference is to see heavy construction activities scheduled for the summer months.

• access to parking: The status of parking remains unchanged. Surface parking on a monthly basis, is available along Sifton Road to the east of the campus and parking within the parking structure is offered on a rush basis. Parking has no impact on site selection.

2.0


St John’s College

November 28, 2012

Student Residence StudySt. John’s CampusServices Plan

ST. JOHN’S COLLEGE

WALLACE BUILDING

SITE OPTION “C”

SITE OPTION “B”

SITE OPTION “A”

PROPERTY LINE

350’ RIVERBANK SETBACKDEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES AND OCEANS

PRO

PER

TY L

INE

PRO

PER

TY L

INE

PROPERTY LINE


SiTe oPTionS:Following a detailed investigation of growth potential, campus layout, services availability and minimum building footprint requirements, we would offer three potential sites to consider for development.

SiTe oPTion a:

location:North East corner of campus (see St. John’s Campus Services Map).Site is bound to the North by Dysart Road (property line), to the East by Sifton Road (parking)(property line), to the south by the Lower level link/ loading dock/ raised platform leading to the Chapel, and to the West by the Daily Bread Outdoor Dining Terrace.

available area:In order to avoid underground services, riverbank setback and react to the corner conditions, the resulting shape is available as shown. It measures 75 feet (22.86m) along the south site line and 110 feet (33.53m) feet along the west site line, resulting in an area that is 6,800 sf in area.

Campus fit:This site offers high level of Campus presence from Dysart Road approach. Building placement must be considered so as not to crowd the existing Chapel or overshadow the existing Daily Bread Terrace, which may become enclosed as an atrium as a result. Views outward from the building would be very good to Common Grounds terrace (a bit less attractive if Terrace is enclosed as atrium) and less good to Sifton Parking Lot.

3.0

North South

WestEast


Current level of development:While no buildings occupy the site, the site is heavily landscaped with trees, swale-ways, and drainage. (see attached plan by Gaboury & Associates, August 1998). As per above, consideration must be given to relocation of existing underground services and Waterways Requirements.

Services:While all services available, gas access would require extensive trenching across entire east side of campus and should not be undertaken.

expansion potential:As it is bound on all sides, expansion could only occur to the south if the existing residence were removed and only in consideration of linking to and crossing over the existing lower level (enclosed) and above-grade, open-air pedestrian link.

Connections:The site offers very good connection to lower level link to St. John’s/ loading dock and is the second most heavily used outdoor pedestrian axis. It is proximate to Daily Bread Café and outdoor terrace.


SiTe oPTion b:

location:Along East limit of campus (see St. John’s Campus Services Map). Site is bound to the North by the Lower level link/ loading dock/ raised platform leading to the Chapel, to the East by Sifton Road (parking)(property line), to the south by Ralph Campbell Road (property line) and to the West by the Commons Courtyard.

available area:70 feet (21m) x 270 feet (82m) = 18,900 sf (1756 sm)

Campus fit:The site offers high level of presence by defining east side of Quadrangle. It offers relative freedom of placement due to orientation and location. It creates stronger definition and enclosure of Quadrangle. The views outward from the building are very good to Quadrangle and less good to Sifton Parking Lot.

Current level of Development:The site currently houses the existing Student Residences Complex. It is relatively lightly landscaped and treed. (see attached plan by Moody & Moore, May 1959). Consideration must be given to relocation of existing underground services if full width and length of available site is used.

North South

WestEast


Services:All services are available to the site. Access to gas would require the least amount of trenching of all three site being considered and should be considered if gas is required.

expansion potential:As it is bound on all sides, expansion could only occur to the west absorbing some of the Quadrangle. The site is large enough that it would not require expansion to accommodate maximum number of projected rooms.

Connections:Site offers very good connection to lower level link to St. John’s, Loading dock, second most heavily used outdoor pedestrian axis and is proximate to Daily Bread Café and outdoor terrace.


SiTe oPTion C:

location:Along South limit of campus (see St. John’s Campus Services Map). Site is bound to the North by the Quadrangle, to the East by Sifton Road (parking)(property line) and existing Student Residence, to the south by Ralph Campbell Road (property line), and to the West by the Robert Schultz Lecture Theatre and beyond to the West property line.

available area:80 feet (24m) x 170 feet (52m) = 13,600 sf (1248 sm)

Campus fit:The site offers high level of presence by defining South side of Quadrangle and blocking view of existing parking structure. It offers relative freedom of placement due to orientation and location. It creates stronger definition and enclosure of Quadrangle. Views outward from the building very good to quadrangle and less good to Ralph Campbell Road and parking structure.

Current level of development:The site is largely vacant and is relatively lightly landscaped and treed. (see attached plan by GPPArchitecture, Feb 2007). Consideration must be given to relocation of existing underground services if full depth and length of available site is used. Proposed maximum density of development can occur without relocation of any services.

North South

WestEast


Services:All services are available to the site. Access to gas would require minor amount of trenching and should be considered if gas is required.

expansion potential:As it is bound on all sides, expansion could only occur to the North absorbing some of the Quadrangle. The site is large enough that it would not require expansion to accommodate maximum number of projected rooms.

Connections:The site offers very good connection to lower level link to St. John’s through Robert Schultz Theatre. It provides the best link to underground tunnel system through the existing parking structure and is located along the most heavily used outdoor pedestrian axis. While being closest to espresso 101, it is farthest from from the Daily Bread Café and outdoor terrace.


bUilDing aSSeSSmenTIn order to compare development options, it is critical to have an in-depth knowledge of the condition and expansion potential of the existing Student Residence and its various components.

building envelope:The various elements of the building envelope and the historical markers of concerns regarding the building envelope are detailed below:• The walls are constructed of one exterior layer of 2 inch Tyndal stone, one interior layer of 1 inch batt

insulation (R-2.0) and one interior surface layer of 9 5/8 inch Haydite Block. The total R-Value of this assembly is between R-4 and R-5. In contrast, current construction standards call for wall assembly R-values of R-20 to R-30. Moreover, the assembly does not have a vapour barrier, an air barrier or airspace (cavity), which decreases its efficiency and creates an uncontrolled dew-point within the block, contributing to the creation of the black mould that appears on the surface of the Tyndal stone. To put it in perspective, the modern windows St. John’s installed have a higher R-value than the existing walls.

• The roof is constructed of an assembly on an exterior layer of built-up tar and gravel, an internal layer of 2 inch rigid insulation (R-5.0) and an interior surface of 4 ½ inch concrete slab. The total R-value of this assembly is between R-6.0 and R-7.0. In contrast, current construction standards call for the roof assembly R-values of R-40 and R-50.

building Systems:While state of the art in their time, the systems have been upgraded, yet still principally based upon repair of a dated system as per the major components below.

Electrical – While the system had benefitted from updating and upgrading, it remains an efficiency deficient system in need of further expansion. There are limits to the updating capacity of a system and the system within St. John’s Residence has surpassed that optimum potential.

Mechanical – Similarly, the existing system remains based upon steam heat and steam heated radiators. This system does not provide for any air exchange at all. This is evidenced by the smells that permeate the complex and is absorbed into porous building materials. Frequent air exchanges create a better and healthier indoor air quality and promote a healthier environment. Air exchanges and heat recapture ultimately create a more energy efficient building that is less costly to maintain. Finally, given the age of this system, pipes were definitely insulated with asbestos. If this has not yet all been removed, any modification to the system will make the material friable (airborne) and will create a hazardous materials incident.

Data – As well, the use of a concrete block wall system alleviates the opportunity of creating chases within which data and power can be run. This results in wiring being exposed, which can cause a safety issue and very likely limits the useable life span of the cabling itself.

4.0


Recent Upgrades:While older, the residence complex has been very well upkept, which is why it has enjoyed a service life in excess of a half century:

Foundation repair: Extensive foundation repairs were undertaken in 2005 to address extensive moisture degradation and infiltration into the basement and foundations. While this repair stabilized the foundation, it did not provide additional bearing capacity to the structure itself, so the building cannot accommodate the additional vertical loading that would occur with the addition of more floors. As well, these remediative works were undertaken largely by hand/ small equipment and in adverse conditions, so while the cost was quite elevated (approximately $400,000) the value of this work in a new build scenario would be equivalent to about $150,000.

Windows: The windows were all replaced with high quality thermally broken and gas entrained units within the past 10 years, so are considered current. If the building is demolished, these could be salvaged for re-use.

Mechanical/ Electrical Over the past 20 years, the building has benefitted from upgrades to the mechanical and electrical systems. Similarly to above, if the building is demolished, a good amount of these elements may be able to be preserved and reused in the new build. This will be highly dependent upon the M&E system being considered for the new build.

Kitchen Upgrades: Upon touring the site, we were advised that the kitchen had been upgraded with newer pieces of equipment on an ongoing basis. Much of the equipment found there is still in very good working condition and has a large quality of service life remaining. These should be assessed for salvaged and re-use.

Conclusion:buildings are preserved and/ or renovated for only three principal reasons:• The role that the building played in the historical or social development of the specific group or within a

specific region.• The stylistic uniqueness of the building or because of the design importance brought to the project by a

designer or building process of note.• The ease with which a building can be renovated and rendered profitable. This is an assessment

procedure which describes the cost associated with renovation, the degree of renovation required to meet modern and profitable standards as well as the relative quantity of building that can be preserved.

Quantity of building that can be preserved in a cost effective and results-driven scenario: As the building envelope, associated structure (exterior walls), the various floors and the Mechanical & Electrical systems account for approximately 72% of the total value of a building, having to replace or substantially upgrade all of these makes the preservation scenario fiscally deficient. The result would be a retrofitted building that would not perform as well as a new building and that would require more frequent maintenance than a new build.

Degree of renovation:Study of the nature and type of wall and roof assemblies, which define the building envelope, reveals that these cannot be easily upgraded. Given the base age of the systems and the degree of repair/ renovation / replacement required to meet current standards, this approach is also fiscally deficient.

Upgrades:


Costs associated with renovation:As this renovation would be considered major in nature, the resulting building would have to meet current national codes at all levels. This element alone would be cost prohibitive. Unlike homes, which are regulated by part 9 of the National Building Code, public buildings such as the private residences (single detached family homes) are governed by Part 3 of the NBC and require a much higher level of compliance. This requirement contributes to making this renovation fiscally unwise. For example, beyond the staircases connecting each floor, between each existing wing, is a set of three or four stairs that join each floor. These are built at slightly different heights. The current code requires that accessibility codes be met. This means that ramps would have to be added at each of these staircase. To meet rise and run requirements, these would each have to be approximately 36 feet long. This would conflict with the doors opening into the hall as well as numerous other issues. Moreover, we would be required to sprinkler the entire facility or provide fire barriers or vestibules: all of which would add great cost and result in very unattractive, expensive and aesthetically challenged facilities.

Preservation Strategies:In this case, building preservation may not be the best path to pursue. That said, there are other preservation strategies. In our case, I believe that we can preserve Tyndal stone cladding, existing windows, kitchen equipment and selected mechanical and electrical elements. I believe that it would be worthwhile to do a preservation strategy and identify all items that can be salvaged and re-used. Beyond being a stewardship issue, this would also contribute to our LEED credits. It had been suggested that the foundation may be preserved. When this was investigated, it was revealed that in order to mitigate possible differential settlement between the existing and new foundation, multiple and complex building hinges and/ or expansion connections would have to be built, negating the value of preserving the existing foundation. Moreover, the new design would have to conform or at least integrate its’ form to the existing foundation, severely limiting efficiencies. For these two reasons, retaining the existing foundations would be both problematic and costly.


ST. JoHn’S College STUDenT ReSiDenCe: Space Program (square feet (sf))

Whichever preservation strategy is being considered, the resulting building must comply to the following space program:

Residential Spaces – Single room 70%, apartment units 30%Single Student Rooms - (8x12) 98 x 140...................................................... 13,440Washroom/shower pods 1 per 20 rooms - 7x400 ........................................... 2,800Lounges 1 per 20 rooms – 7 x 450 ................................................................. 3,1502 Bedroom apts c/w kitchenette, wc, stor, dr/lr, 2br – 60 x 336 .................... 20,160Subtotal .................................................................................................................. 39,550 sf

food Service SpacesKitchen – cook/prep/plate/wash/store.............................................................. 1000Servery – stations/hotplates/steamers/etc......................................................... 400Dry Storage – store/rec/trash/recycle ................................................................ 300Cooler/Freezer................................................................................................... 300Catering Holding Area ....................................................................................... 200Kitchen Equip. Stor., tables/chairs/glass/linen ................................................... 300Kitchen Office4450 & workstation...................................................................... 150Dining Hall – 120 seats (NBC 1.2mpp – recomm 1.4 or 15SF ....................... 1,800Dining Hall w/c 1F-1M-1Unisex ......................................................................... 200Summer kitchen................................................................................................. 400Subtotal .................................................................................................................. 5,050 sf

building Support SpacesLobby ................................................................................................................. 400Elevator room .................................................................................................... 100Mail room ........................................................................................................... 150Garbage room & 7 smaller recycling rooms ...................................................... 600Loading Dock..................................................................................................... 200Laundry Room & Linen Storage ........................................................................ 375Mechanical Room (internal system) ............................................................... 3,000Electrical Room .............................................................................................. 1,000Per floor I.T. sub-rooms ..................................................................................... 350Mop/Janitor Rooms 7 x 50sf .............................................................................. 350Linen rooms 7 x 20sf ......................................................................................... 140 Subtotal .................................................................................................................. 6,665 sf

Student Service SpacesLaundry Room - 12 dryers/10 washers ............................................................. 500Student Storage Rooms (7 x 200) .................................................................. 1,400Building Long Term Storage Room ................................................................. 3,600Luggage Heat-Sanitizing Room (large enough for peak load?) ........................ 100Fitness Room – (1) bike/ (1) elliptical/ (1)treadmill ........................................... 400Study Room ....................................................................................................... 500Movie Room ...................................................................................................... 600 Subtotal .................................................................................................................. 7,100 sf

Space subtotal net area ......................................................................................... 58,365Net to gross ratio (20%) corridors, walls, elevators, stairs, etc................................ 11,673ToTal projected gross area ................................................................................... 70,038 sf (6500 sm)

5.0


oRDeR of magniTUDe CaPiTal ConSTRUCTion bUDgeTThe purpose of the Order of Magnitude budget is to allow St. John’s College to plan and budget for the overall project costs as well as help control potential project cost overruns by tightly defining the scope, extent and definition of the works.

level of accuracy:The budget review comments are offered only as guidelines. Their accuracy is defined by the information that was received from representatives of St. John’s College with support documentation provided by the University of Manitoba. We have not undertaken exhaustive investigation to confirm that the information provided by these sources was accurate and current. Please note, that as applicable, all room sizes and dollar values will be rounded up to reflect the level of accuracy of this exercise.

The budget provided is equivalent to a class “D” Capital Construction Budget and as such is, by definition accurate to a degree of 20%. The costing data is based upon supply and installation costs provided by the tile supplier as well as benchmarks provided by Hanscomb Yardsticks for Costing – Cost Data for the Canadian Construction Industry 2011. This data has also been complemented with current information gathered regarding the actual construction costs of two similar recent builds on the University of Manitoba Campus as well as one other that is currently in the final stages of design and pricing. As indicated, the unit costs have been increased by 4.55% to factor in 2013 construction prices as well as the current state of the construction industry.

The works do not include the following elements:• Demolition or upgrading of existing St. John’s College spaces.• Construction of new roadways or aprons beyond those attached to the buildings.• Extensive landscape works.• Redevelopment, upgrading or restoration of underground services.• Land acquisition costs.• Municipal or Campus based taxes, permits, contributions, levies.• Survey and study costs.• Soft costs and associated disbursement and taxes.

Important notes:• All amounts expressed in $CDN unless otherwise indicated.• Figures do not include endowment or interest based funding as a project cost.• When soft costs are referred to, they mean the professional fees charged by Architects & Engineers.

When associated to Construction, they include Design, Tender and Construction Administration and One-Year Warrantee services.

• The Budget provided is based upon current market prices for the scope described.• The budget was designed in consideration of scope of the project, the choices of materials, and final

design.• Budget can be improved upon, if necessary, by preselecting less expensive materials and limiting scope

of intervention, etc.

6.0


lowest Cost SpacesSingle Student Rooms 13,440Lounges 3,1502 Bedroom Apartments 20,160Kitchen Equip. Stor. 300Kitchen Office & workstation 150Dining Hall 1,800Lobby 400Elevator room 100Mail room 150Garbage room/smaller recycling rooms 600Loading Dock 200Mechanical Room 3,000Electrical Room 1,000Student Storage Rooms 1,400Building Long Term Storage Room 3,600Luggage Heat-Sanitizing Room 100Fitness Room 400Study Room 500Movie Room 600Linen rooms 140Subtotal 51,190 sf

Cost of Total Space by major building ComponentA1 Substructure 550,000A2 Structure 1,870,000

A3 Exterior Closure 2,385,000

B1 Partitions and Doors 1,886,000B2 Finishes 1,370,000

B3 Fittings and Equipment 755,000

C1 Mechanical 3,384,000C2 Electrical 1,735,000

Z1 General Requirements and Fees 1,550,000

Subtotal Budget for this elements $15,485,000

moderate Cost SpacesWashroom/shower pods 2,800Mop/ Janitor Rooms 350Dining Hall w/cs 200Subtotal 3,350 sf


Cost of Total Space by major building ComponentA1 Substructure 23,450A2 Structure 105,500

A3 Exterior Closure 140,550

B1 Partitions and Doors 117,250B2 Finishes 140,850


C1 Mechanical 316,600C2 Electrical 140,700

Z1 General Requirements and Fees 117,250

Subtotal Budget for this element $1,172,500

Higher Cost SpacesKitchen 1000Servery 400Dry Storage 300Cooler/ Freezer 300Catering Holding Area 200Dining Hall 1,800Summer kitchen 400Laundry Room & Linen Storage 375Laundry Room 500I.T. sub-rooms 350 Subtotal 5,625 sf

Cost of Total Space by major building ComponentA1 Substructure 45,750A2 Structure 183,700

A3 Exterior Closure 275,500

B1 Partitions and Doors 183,500B2 Finishes 230,000


C1 Mechanical 737,150C2 Electrical 275,500

Z1 General Requirements and Fees 230,200

Subtotal Budget this elements $2,390,000


Amalgamated subtotal for all spaces 19,047,500Net to gross (20%) 3,809,500ToTal Capital Construction Budget $22,857,000 @ 70,038 sf ($326.35/ sf)

Design and Construction Contingency (8%) 1,828,560Soft costs and disbursements (13%) 2,971,410

ToTal Global OoM Project Budget $27,656,970 (2012 $ plus applicable taxes)

Escalation $28,901,533 (2013 $) $30,202,100 (2014 $) $31,561,200 (2015 $)


ReDeveloPmenT STRaTegieSThe redevelopment strategies have included complete and partial renovation, horizontal expansion, vertical expansion and bridging expansion. The assessment and recommendations are as follows:Complete or partial renovation:As described above, the degree of renovation required to bring the rooms and other spaces up to modern standards are so extensive and the resulting construction so compromised that this option is neither functionally nor fiscally rational.

Horizontal expansion:Horizontal expansion, similar to the expansion which occurred when the Women’s residence portion was added, relies upon the principal building being preserved and providing a stable anchor for the expansion. Given the age, condition and configuration of the current building, horizontal expansion should not be pursued. Moreover, given the limited availability of land upon which to expand, more high density/ lower footprint scenarios should be investigated,

vertical expansion:In essence, this means adding more floors to the existing complex. These would have to be of the same basic footprint as the existing building and presume that the building beneath would be re-used. More modern pod configuration and changes in suite sizes and ratios makes this expansion highly problematic. Finally, if we are considering demolition of the existing building, this scenario is not viable.

bridging expansion:This option entails building above the existing building while preserving it, as was done in the case of the Pembina Hall redevelopment. This is an extremely costly bridging solution. Again, is only viable if the building beneath has such value that it should be preserved and the costs of such a strategy justified. As per the report above, this is not the case and as such, this option is not viable.

Staged Strategy:If the premises above are acceptable, the preferred and recommended strategy is as follows. Luckily, it can be applied to the development of all three sites under consideration.

Phase 1: Build new 100 room residence building at either site Option A or C. This will assure that student retention is not negatively impacted by the redevelopment. This new complex would accommodate the 100 students now residing in the existing complex, yet have food services provision to accommodate the demand of either the 160 or 200 eventual residents of the completed project. In this scenario, kitchen equipment would be rededicated for use in the new building.

Phase 2: Demolition of the existing residence complex and recycling of its building materials can be undertaken.

Phase 3: As demand is confirmed, the addition to the new building can be launched. At this point the designation of the male/ female suite ratio can be adjusted. The addition can be designed in such a way as to not impact on the new residence building, allowing construction to move forward without impact on residents. Construction of the new wing or either 60 or 100 new rooms would proceed using salvaged materials to mitigate some of the development costs. This expansion can be either horizontal or vertical in nature. Horizontal addition would cause less construction impact on residents. Under different scenarios, phased construction can proceed under different configurations as expressed in the attached phasing development plan.

7.0


St John’s College

November 28, 2012

Student Residence StudySite Development OptionsPhase 1 and 2

Phase 1 and 2Site Option “A” or “C”

Phase 1Build on Site Option “A” or “C”

Phase 2 Demolish entire existing St. John’s College Residence

Phase 1Site Option “B”

Phase 1: Demolish south portion St. John’s College Residence


WALLACE BUILDING

PHASE 1SITE OPTION “C”

(BASEMENT+ 3 STORIES)

PH

ASE

2D

EMO

LITI

ON

(SO

UTH

PO

RTI

ON

)

PHASE 1SITE OPTION

“A”(BASEMENT + 5/6 STORIES)

PROPERTY LINE

PRO

PER

TY L

INE

PRO

PER

TY L

INE

PROPERTY LINE


St John’s College

November 28, 2012

Student Residence StudySite Development OptionsPhase 3Horizontal Development


WALLACE BUILDING

PHASE 1SITE

OPTION “A”

PROPERTY LINE

PRO

PER

TY L

INE

PRO

PER

TY L

INE

Phase 3Site Option “A”

Horizontaol Expansion OptionBuild south, adjacent to Phase 1.

Vertical Expansion OptionBuild on top of Phase 1 to 10+ stories

PHASE 3(HORIZONTAL EXPANSION)

PROPERTY LINE


St John’s College

November 28, 2012

Student Residence StudySite Development OptionsPhase 3Vertical Development


PHASE 2SITE OPTION

“B”


PROPERTY LINE

PRO

PER

TY L

INE

PRO

PER

TY L

INE

WALLACE BUILDING

Phase 2 and 3Site Option “B”

Phase 2Build on Site “B”

Phase 3Horizontaol Expansion OptionBuild north, adjacent to Phase 1

Vertical Expansion Option Build on Site Option “A”

PROPERTY LINE


St John’s College

November 28, 2012

Student Residence StudySite Development OptionsPhase 3Vertical Development


PHASE 1SITE OPTION “C”

PROPERTY LINE

PRO

PER

TY L

INE

PRO

PER

TY L

INE

WALLACE BUILDING

Phase 3Site Option “C”

Horizontaol Expansion OptionBuild to the East, adjacent to Phase 1

Vertical Expansion Option Build on top of Phase 1 to a height of 7 stories


PROPERTY LINE


aSSoCiaTeD oRDeR of magniTUDe CaPiTal ConSTRUCTion bUDgeT PeR Re-DeveloPmenT STRaTegyPhase 1Build spaces to replace 100 student living units on a 70/ 30 unit split ratio. It will include all mechanical spaces as well as all food preparation spaces

lowest Cost SpacesSingle Student Rooms 6,720 Lounges 1,5752 Bedroom apts 10,080Kitchen Equip. Stor. 300Kitchen Office & workstation 150Dining Hall 1,800Lobby 200Elevator room 50Mail room 75Garbage room/smaller recycling rooms 600Loading Dock 200Mechanical Room 1,500Electrical Room 500Student Storage Rooms 700Building Long Term Storage Room 1,800Luggage Heat-Sanitizing Room 100Fitness Room 400Study Room 500Movie Room 600Linen rooms 70Subtotal 27,920 sf = $ 8,431,840 ($302/ sf)

moderate Cost SpacesWashroom/ shower pods 1,400Mop/ Janitor Rooms 175Dining Hall w/ cs 200Subtotal 1775 sf = $ 621,250 ($350/ sf)

Higher Cost SpacesKitchen 1000Servery 400Dry Storage 300Cooler/Freezer 300Catering Holding Area 200Dining Hall 1,800Summer kitchen 400Laundry Room & Linen Storage 375Laundry Room 500I.T. sub-rooms 175Subtotal 5,450 sf = $ 2,316,250 ($425/ sf)

8.0


Amalgamated subtotal for all spaces 11,369,340Net to gross (20%) 2,273,870Subtotal Capital Construction Budget 13,643,210Kitchen Equip reuse credit (125,000)ToTal: Capitol Construction Budget $13,518,210

Design and Construction Contingency (8%) 1,081,457Soft costs and disbursements (13%) 1,757,370

ToTal Global OoM Project Budget $16,357,037 (2012 $ plus applicable taxes)

Escalation $17,093,100 (2013 $) $17,862,290 (2014 $) $18,666,100 (2015 $)

Phase 2Demolish existing reduce building, preserving the windows and stone cladding.

Budget cost for demolition $250,000

Phase 3Build balance of 100 student residence spaces on a 70/30 unit split ratio. It will include all mechanical spaces.

lowest Cost SpacesSingle Student Rooms 6,720Lounges 1,5752 Bedroom apts 10,080Lobby 200Elevator room 50Mail room 75Mechanical Room 1,500Electrical Room 500Student Storage Rooms 700Building Long Term Storage Room 1,800Linen rooms 70Subtotal 23,270 = $ 7,027,540 ($302/ sf)

moderate Cost SpacesWashroom/ shower pods 1,400Mop/ Janitor Rooms 175Subtotal 1,575 sf = $551,250 ($350/ sf)


Higher Cost SpacesI.T. sub-rooms 175 Subtotal 175 = $74,375 ($425/ sf)

Amalgamated subtotal for all spaces 7,653,165Net to gross (20%) 1,530,633Subtotal Capitol Construction Budget 9,183,798Credit for stone cladding and window reuse (225,000)ToTal: Capital Construction Budget 8,958,798

Design and Construction Contingency (8%) 716,700Soft costs and disbursements (13%) 1,164,640

ToTal Global OOM Project Budget $10,840,138 (2012 $ plus applicable taxes)

Escalation $11,327,944 (2013 $) $11,837,700 (2014 $) $12,370,395 (2015 $)


aPPenDiX aPrecedent & Comparable Examples

Pembina Hall

Amenities: Food Services – not in the building but via link to existing Pembina Hall belowStyle: Bridging structure over existing Pembina Hall. Minimalist interior finishes. Exposed structure. ModernistLEED Status: Silver design but not LEED CertifiedYear Built: September 2011Gross Square Footage: 122,000 sf (11333.8 sm)Sleeping Rooms or Units: 115Resident Capacity: 360SF per resident: 338.8 sf/ residentBudget: $ 42,000,000Cost per square foot: $344.26/ sf (adjusted $381.44/ sf (2014), $398.61/ sf (2015))


arthur v. mauro Residence

Amenities: Residence and student support spaces only, some admin offices, no food services. Each 2 bed room shares a micro-kitchen and 3 piece washroom.Style: Modernist, comfortable, upgraded residential type (carpets/ hardwood baseboards) finishes.LEED Status: Not pursuedYear Built: 2005Gross Square Footage: 108,150 sf (10,047 sm)Sleeping Rooms or Units: 155 (2-bed units)Resident Capacity: 316SF per resident: 342.25 sf/ residentBudget: $ 23,000,000Cost per square foot: $212.67/ sf (adjusted $ 336.82/ sf(2014), $351.98/ sf (2015))


Parking lot D Residences (no formal naming)

Amenities: Minimum student common spaces, rooms only, no food service or otherStyle: Simple / ModernistLEED Status: Not LEED accreditedYear Built: Summer 2013Gross Square Footage: 70,200 sf (6,520 sm)Sleeping Rooms or Units: 115Resident Capacity: 227SF per resident: 309.25 sf/ residentBudget: $ 18,700,000Cost per square foot: $266.38/ sf (adjusted $278.37/ sf (2014), $290.90/ sf (2015))

St John's College/Diocesan Executive Dialogue Groups

Report to SJC Council and Diocesan Executive

Subject: Theological education in the Diocese of Rupert’s Land and SJC Faculty of Theology In November 2011 College Council requested Diocesan Executive to enter into a dialogue with the College to look at the future of Theological Education in the Diocese of Rupert’s Land. In January 2012, Diocesan Executive agreed to the request and appointed the Rev. Jamie Howison, the Rev. Dr. Jane Barter Moulaison and the Venerable Godfrey Mawejje as their representatives. College Council in turn appointed Mr. Bernie Beare, the Rev. Dr. John Stafford and Dr. Christopher Trott to represent the College in the dialogue. The group met three times: May 1, September 11 , and November 15. Discussions were informal and wide-ranging. The group focused around two main areas of consideration:

1) Where the St John’s College had been and where it might go. The College is a Diocesan institution and unlike some of our fellow Anglican Colleges across Canada we do not have the status of a provincial or national training centre. Thus we must look to the Diocese for direction and to meet the needs of the Diocese. We examined the development of programs at the College including the work of the Anglican Institute for Ministry and the local collaborative ministry modules. In addition we looked at the development of the Diploma and Certificate programs in response to understood needs in the Diocese. The problem for the College in both of these processes was that after investing an enormous amount of time and money in developing the programs, there was virtually no uptake form the Diocese, indeed the local collaborative ministry program seemed to disappear altogether. This left the College confused as to what the needs of the Diocese were. While the group spent some considerable time reflecting on possible ways for the College to “retool” to meet the demands and needs for training for ministry in the modern context, the energy and expense of such an exercise was overwhelming without clearer direction from the Diocese. Academic standards come into view. The College protects this idea and so should the church and its theological faculties. It is not clear at all that our diocese has a head for this. By its very nature, a Faculty of Theology must engage in serious scholarship and train the life of the Christian mind as well as it can. This is not achieved by a program alone but it’s a place to start by laying the foundations and as such is indispensable and basic. So if the diocese wants SJC to do simple programs then it may not need a Faculty. Rather it could do it all by itself. Faculties are all about standards, prerequisites, developing thinking and learning skills, critical feedback and yes, it must be possible to fail the courses it offers otherwise they’re not real. However, the

1 of 3

Faculty of Theology is not in the business of adjudicating suitability to ordination except insofar as it might offer a view on a students academic skills—the diocese can decide if that’s important. 2) From the point of view of the Diocese, there are a number of groups that are responsible for theological education. Within the Diocesan structures alone there are four groups all of which deal with ongoing theological education: Diocesan Discernment Group for Ordained Ministry, Local Collaborative Ministry Working Group, Diaconal Working Group and the Clergy Continuing Education Committee. None of these groups seem to be talking with each other and they are certainly not in conversation with the College. In addition there are programs such as Education for Ministry and the Alpha program both of which provide some level of basic Christian Education. Finally, there are the other training institutions in Winnipeg including the Centre for Christian Studies, the University of Winnipeg, Canadian Mennonite University and Providence University College, all of which provide training programs for ministry, some at the M.Div. level. While the College is in conversation with these latter entities through the Winnipeg Theological Cooperative, that group itself is discerning new directions and has not met for the past eight months.

The consultation on Theology at Saint John’s College undertaken by members of the Diocese and the College has led to the conclusion that the Faculty of Theology is not sustainable in its current configuration, and therefore recommended a period of suspension of operations. However, the consultation group discerned that the suspension of operations would be justifiable only if it enabled a period of time during which the Diocese and College could work together to discern what, if any, future might be in store for theological education in the Diocese, and what role Saint John’s College might play in it. Given the rich history of the College in the Diocese, the consultation group was unwilling to recommend a cessation of the Faculty’s operations without further efforts to maintain Saint John’s College’s historical role in shaping the intellectual life of the Diocese and the Church. For all present purposes, the Faculty of Theology is already suspended insofar as it has no students, no faculty members, no meaningful budget, and no clear marketplace. There are numerous reasons for this state of affairs but to recommend suspension of operations (as opposed to ceasing operations entirely), seems only to acknowledge reality. To be sure it’s not the easiest nor most delightful sort of conclusion to reach but anything else would be avoidance at best or denial at worst. The group reached this decision together. The consultation group therefore recommends that a Commission on Theological Education be appointed within the Diocese with the specific goal of looking to the future of theological education in the Diocese and at Saint John’s College’s role therein. It also recommends that the Diocese and the College commit funds for a two-year period to facilitate the Commission’s work and to create a report and strategic plan for the future of theological education in the Diocese. The Commission on Theological Education will consist of various members of the Diocese

2 of 3

and the College who have special expertise and commitment to theological education. The role of the Commission will involve bringing together various constituencies currently engaged in theological formation with an aim to the coordination and enhancement of their efforts. These groups may include:

• Education for Ministry • Diaconate Working Group • Catechesis of the Good Shepherd • Local Collaborative Ministry • Diocesan Discernment Group on Ordained Ministry • Clergy Development Group and • Various parish-based groups engaged in Christian/theological education

The Commission will also study and make recommendations on standards for theological education for the following ministries within our Diocese:

• Priestly ministry • Diaconal ministry • Indigenous ministries • African ministries

In this work, they will make use of such educational guidelines as Prior Learning Assessment, TEAC competencies, and the Anglican Church of Canada’s Learning Outcomes working document in the creation of policies that may assist the Diocese both to recognize prior learning and to ensure clear and consistent standards for theological education. At the end of the two-year consultancy period, the Commission will make recommendations to both the Diocese and to the Council on future directions for theological education in the Diocese of Rupert’s Land with specific attention given to the continued role for Saint John’s College therein.

3 of 3

St John’s College

Warden’s Report to Council

November 28, 2012

The major College event since our last Council meeting was College Convocation on November 4. We were honoured to present a Doctor of Canon Law (honoris causa) to Dr. Verna Kirkness and to admit Dr. Janet Hoskins as an Honorary Fellow in absentia. Dr. Kirkness gave a profound Convocation address that challenged all of us to think more carefully about how we engage education. I was delighted with the number of students that turned out for the event – we were almost crowded out. We now need to work on better representation in the platform party. Today we had a luncheon to honour Janet Hoskins as she was away at the time of Convocation. Much of October and November has been taken up with the two main issues that appear before Council today: the preparation of materials around the residence study and the dialogue over theology.

1) I have been a member of the selection committee for the CRC Chair in Indian Residential Schools.

2) I gave a talk on the history of Cumberland Sound to the Selkirk Senior’s Group on October 5.

3) I represented the College at the Fall Convocations on October 17 and 18. I had been involved in the nomination of Darlene Wight, Curator of Inuit Art at the WAG, for an honourary degree.

4) I attended the Diocese of Rupert’s Land Synod on October 18, 19, 20. At Synod I presented Bernie Beare for the Order of Rupert’s Land since the College had nominated him.

5) I attended the Inuit Studies Conference in Washington D.C. on October 24, 25, 26, 27 just getting out of Washington ahead of the hurricane.

6) I attended the Senior Executive Retreat for the University on October 29 where we discussed the upcoming capital campaign.

7) I attended the Budget and Resource Allocation Workshop in preparation for the upcoming round of Strategic Resource Planning exercises.

8) On November 5 I attended the University 1 Teaching Excellence Awards evening where Lance Roberts was honoured for his first year teaching.

9) I was a guest at Government House for the Revitalizing Reconciliation in Manitoba Conference on October 6.

10) Along with other members of the College I attended the Annual Bishop’s Dinner on October 6.

11) I am now a member of the Outstanding Workplace Initiative Respectful, Equitable and Inclusive Work Environment Advisory Team.

12) I met with Dean Jeff Taylor and Prof. Barry Fergusson to discuss revitalizing the Canadian Studies Program.

13) We welcomed the young people from Skownan First Nation and the Children Rising Mentorship program for a Bar-B-Q on November 17.

14) I participated in the President’s Visionary Conversations on “The True North: Canada’s Final Frontier” ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ku82guQ2L9s&feature=plcp) on November 21.

15) I was the host for the Opening Dinner for the Elders and Traditional Teachers Conference on November 22.

This is, of course, in addition, to regularly representing the College at Provost’s Council, Senate, and Faculty of Arts Council. Respectfully submitted, Christopher Trott, Warden and Vice-Chancellor.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ku82guQ2L9s&feature=plcp

Bursars’ report to Council 11-28-12 Maintenance/Building Items I have been having regular meetings with Ian Park, Amy Craddock, and Justin Bouchard to discuss, and stay on top of, ongoing maintenance issues in all areas of the College. This is part of our renewed focus on physical plant issues in the College, which now involves Ian Park taking more of a lead role, Amy Craddock handling the administrative end of things, and Justin Bouchard in his capacity as Dean of Residence. So far the results have been very encouraging, and we are making significant strides in improving the overall experience for students, whether that be in the residence, or the academic areas of the College. Residence housekeeping We currently have two full time housekeeping staff who do an amazing job keeping our residence clean. However, we historically have not had anyone on staff for the weekends, which is often evident by the time Monday morning arrives. As a result we have been employing some food service staff members on a rotating basis to perform basic housekeeping duties on the weekend. This has been well received, and effective. Residence Assessment/Planning Chris Trott, Ian Park, Justin Bouchard, and I met with Guy Prefontaine from GPP architecture to assess the needs and current state of our residence, and what some options were moving forward in terms of renovating or potentially re-building. (As outlined in the meeting tonight) Cloister Entrance This long, drawn out project is for all intents and purposes now complete. Incorrectly manufactured concrete slabs have now been replaced, and all that is left is some clean-up work, and increased traction strips. Budget Reported on earlier in the agenda

Dean of Studies Report to Council November 28, 2012. Brenda Cantelo

Events since September, 2012. 1. October 3rd – October 26, 2012. Art Exhibit by folk/community artists, Manju Lodha and Isam Aboud: “Women and Human Rights.” Quiet Room. 2.Sunday, November 4th. Convocation. This year we added a book table, “Celebrating Research at St. John’s College,” at the Convocation reception. Copies of recent publications by College Fellows were available for the public to examine. This was so successful that we hosted a second follow up event at the Library. See below. 3.Monday, November 19th. Sally Ito, University of Manitoba Writer in Residence, reading from Alert to Glory in the St. John’s College Library. 4.Tuesday, November 20th. “Celebrating Research at St. John’s College.” Readings and reception to recognize publications by St. John’s Fellows and staff. The event was jointly sponsored by the College, the University of Manitoba Press and the St. John’s College Library. Publications included works by: Jim Blanchard, Diana Brydon, Jack Bumsted ( U of M Press), Francis Carroll, Rod Clifton, Robert Coutts, Barry Ferguson, Gerald Friesen, Esyllt Jones, Kurt Markstrom, Jeff Masuda, Agnes Pawlowska, Jonathan Peyton, Lance Roberts , Paul Thomas (U of M Press), Robert Thomas and Anthony Waterman.

5. Soup and Bread lectures continue at lunchtime in the Senior Common Room, with Robert Thomas organizing the events in the first term and Struan Sinclair in the second term. Fall Series:

Wednesday, September 19. David Punter, “Wild Mushrooms – to eat or not to eat?” Tuesday, Oct. 9, Lisa Landrum, "The Dramatic Origins of Architectural Theory" Wednesday, Oct. 24, Susie Fisher, "High Church Mennonites? The Changing Relationship Between Religion and Ethnicity Among Manitoba Mennonites at an Anglican Church." Wednesday, Oct. 31, Jonathan Peyton, “Transmission: Legacies of Extractive Economies in the New Northwest Gold Rush.” Wednesday, Nov. 14, Robert Coutts, “Historic Sites and Community Memory: Redefining a “National Histoy.” Tuesday, Nov. 27, Barry Ferguson, "In Pursuit of John W. Dafoe"

6. Brown Bag Lunches. The Brown Bag Lunches alternate with the Soup and Bread lectures. Rod Clifton is organizing the events and the following speakers have been scheduled : Fall:

October 2: Dr. Paul Dyck, Dean, Humanities and Sciences, CMU, “The story of CMU. Winnipeg’s newest university.” October 10:Dr. Gabor Csepregi, V. P. Academic & Research, Universite de Saint-Boniface,“Academic life in a small university.” November 20: Dr. Chris Adams, Rector, St. Paul’s College,“Our community in the larger U of M community.” December 5: Ms. Deborah Young, Executive Lead, Indigenous Achievement, U of M, “Pathways to Indigenous Achievement.” Winter: January 15: Bill Bumstead, Programs Administrator, Neeginan Institute of Applied Technology, Winnipeg. “Aboriginal Education and Training at Neeginan Institute of Applied Technology.” February 6: Shawna Dempsey. Co-Executive Director, Mentoring Artists for Women’s Art, Winnipeg. “Mentorship: Transformative Education without Bureaucracy.” March 12: David Watt, Director, Institute for the Humanities, University of Manitoba. “Allusions of Grandeur.” March 20: Bonnie Hallman, Director, University 1, University of Manitoba. “Creating Opportunities for Success in the First Year: Evolving University 1 into a First Year Centre.”

7. We are hosting “Muffin Breaks” throughout the year and invite speakers from across campus. Our first speaker is: Steve Lecce – Associate Director of the Center for Professional and Applied Ethics, who will give a talk on November 30th about the Center. 8. The College end of term reception is scheduled for Wednesday, December 5th from 3:00- 4:30 p.m. 9.Our Family Christmas party will be on Saturday, December 8th. 10.Plans for refurbishing the furniture in the Senior Common Room are underway. The chairs and coffee tables are well-made but are over forty years old. Design professionals recommend that we re-upholster the couches and chairs since they were custom designed for the College and are of exceptional quality. 11.Award-winning author, Andrew Nikiforuk, has been selected to be the 2013 Marjorie Ward Lecturer. Nikiforuk has written Tar Sands: Dirty Oil and the Future of the Continent as well as The Energy of Slaves: Oil and the New Servitude. The Ward Lecture is scheduled for Thursday, January 31, 2013.

12.I will be on Research/Study Leave from January 1 – July 1, 2013 and Dr. Esyllt Jones will be Acting Dean of Studies for that time.

Development Officer Report to Assembly 28th November, 2012

Fundraising

• Gifts received since April as at today are close to $80,000. • The Fall campaign was mailed out October/November and response has been slow but to date we

have a 1% and are anticipating a 3.5% response rate. • Developing a plan for the potential capital campaign

Alumni/Stewardship

• Continuing to call/visit with donors on a regular basis. • A scholarship winner and I went to visit with the donor of the award. She was very appreciative

of the visit as was her daughter. • Planning a trip to Toronto with the Warden for mid-January to visit with alumni.

Marketing/Communications

• In Lumine will be mailed in early February • Suggestions for stories/articles are appreciated.

Staffing

• Jill Stafford started in the Development Office in mid-October as the Development Coordintor. She brings with her a wealth of experience and is already having a positive impact on the office.

• Currently have one volunteer coming in on a regular basis.

Misc

• Continue to attend UofM External Relations and Philanthropy Department meetings. Submitted by: Jackie Markstrom 26th November, 2012

for the meeting of wednesday, november 28, 2012 · 2019-12-12 · st john’s college council...

Documents