Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCSD-11-102 - Spectator Facility Review - Phase 1 Report complet~~~..~L 1~~ ~~1~~ G~~~~~~ ~~ ~f ~~~~ ~.Il~i~~~~~r.~~ REPORT T0: Community and Infrastructure Services Committee DATE OF MEETI NG: September 26, 2011 SUBMITTED BY: Jeff Willmer, Deputy CAO Community Services, 2325 PREPARED BY: Spectator Arena Review Group, Keith Baulk, Chair, 2393 WARDS) INVOL VED: All DATE OF REPORT: September 17, 2011 REPORT NO.: CSD-11-102 SUBJECT: Spectator Facility Review- Kitchener Memorial Auditorium Complex RECOMMENDATION: That staff be directed to take no further action at this time on the potential of a new spectator arena for the City of Kitchener; and, That consideration of the revised expansion proposal by the Kitchener Rangers Hockey Club as outlined in report CSD #11-102 be tabled pending a neighbourhood meeting, public engagement, a review of the loan options and a 3rd party review of the new Kitchener Ranger Hockey Club business case; and further, That a final report updating the outcomes of the neighbourhood meeting, engagement and reviews be presented to CISC on November 7t" 2011. BACKGROUND: On June 14t", 2010 representatives of the Kitchener Ranger Hockey Club (KRHC) made a presentation to Kitchener city council proposing a 3500 seat (approximate) expansion to Cardillo Arena at the Kitchener Memorial Auditorium Complex (The Aud). This would bring the overall seating capacity to 10,000. They indicated the KRHC had achieved tremendous success in the community and for a number of years have had average attendance at their home games in excess of 100% of seating capacity. They also indicated they had a confirmed waiting list for season tickets in excess of 1200. As a result they felt a need to investigate options to address the lack of tickets available to members of the community to attend their games. The KRHC set four goals while considering the manner in which they would address the issue of the shortage of ticket availability for their games. The goals were as follows: 1. Increased seating capacity 2. Retain and/or improved amenities such as team spaces and fan comfort 7-1 1 Staff Report I~`r~.x~,ivER CommunityServicesDepartment www.kitchenerta 3. Provide a facility capable of hosting other major events 4. KRHC would be a primary funder of the capital costs of the new amenities The KRHC investigated the cost associated with building a brand new 11,500 seat arena. They also looked at the costs and feasibility associated with expanding Cardillo Arena to 10,000 seats. Following the analysis they felt expanding Cardillo Arena to 10,000 seats was more aligned with the four goals they set for this project and decided to present that option to the City of Kitchener as their preferred approach. During the council presentation in June 2010, the KRHC delivered the project details and a high level business case for the expansion proposal. Highlights of the business case were as follows: - Construction cost for the seating component of the expansion was in the range of $50 million. - KRHC would require a loan from the City of Kitchener repayable over 30 years - KRHC would be able to fund a maximum of $44 million of the construction cost (plus interest on the $44 million loan) - KRHC would enter into a 30 year tenant lease with the City - 100% of the ticket revenue from the new seats would be used to pay the debt (principal and interest) Following the presentation by the KRHC, Council directed staff to develop a work plan to verify the KRHC business plan and determine what the best approach would be for the City in the future with regard to the KRHC proposal. Council did not eliminate any options and suggested that staff report back on three options: 1. Build a new spectator arena 2. Expand Cardillo Arena 3. Retain the current seating configuration (no expansion) The work plan was developed by a cross departmental team Council on June 23, 2010. The plan suggested that the City reviews and studies to assist council in making a decision support a larger (new or expanded) spectator facility or take r KRHC. The goals for the first phase of the work plan were as follows: of City staff and presented to should undertake a number of about whether the City should no action on the request by the 1. Establish the need for a larger spectator venue for the City of Kitchener and determine the ideal size of the venue. 2. Confirm the feasibility of the proposed KRHC design and confirm costing 3. Undertake a condition audit of current venue along with an assessment of the costs to maintain it at its current level over the long term 4. Verify the validity of the KRHC business case 5. Confirm the potential of providing a loan to the KRHC to fund the project and/or any alternative solutions that would result in the ability to fund the project Council approved the work plan and ultimately provided a deadline to staff of September 2011 to report back. 7-2 1 Staff Report I~`r~.x~,ivER CommunityServicesDepartment www.kitchenerta REPORT: A summary of each of the reports incorporated as part of the work plan approved by council is included below: 1. Needs Study Attached is a copy of the needs study that was undertaken to confirm the benefits and appropriate size of a larger spectator venue for the City of Kitchener. The report summary provides key findings and recommendations. The study confirmed the need fora 9700 seat venue for the City of Kitchener. The recommendation for 9700 seats is based on a market penetration analysis for OHL hockey, the size of the KRHC waiting list and proven demand for access to Ranger games. The study also indicated Kitchener is currently relatively event rich (with both the Centre in the Square and The Aud providing events for the community). The only events not currently being held on a regular basis in the City of Kitchener are A-list concerts (for example major acts that take place in Toronto) and some major sporting events requiring more seats (e.g. Canadian Men's Curling Championship). The study indicated a larger venue could attract on average 6 - 8 more event dates on an annual basis comprised of a combination of touring shows, concerts and/or a major sporting event. It should be noted some of the additional events would take place because of logistical changes to the venue (i.e. higher score clock), not the additional seats. Kitchener's close proximity to major event markets and larger venues in Toronto, Hamilton and London were identified as limiting factors in securing more events than the 6 - 8 event days outlined in the report. In summary, the report confirms a 9700 seat venue would be an ideal size to support the needs of the KRHC, however it will not increase the number of event days significantly and likely not attract more A-list type of acts. 2. Proposed Design and Costing The City of Kitchener engaged Melloul-Blarney Construction to undertake a high level review of the design and costing components of the original Kitchener Ranger proposal to expand Cardillo Arena at The Aud. The review identified 2 major concerns related to the 3500 seat expansion as follows: • A renovation the size of the one proposed by the Kitchener Ranger Hockey Club is a high risk project from a timeline perspective. The reviewers cautioned the construction schedule proposed is challenging and leaves little room to address problems that could be uncovered as the project proceeds. This is a high profile project where meeting the project milestones is critical with respect to the event activity (including Ranger games) and failing to do so would have significant consequences for both the City and hockey club. They also felt there would be challenges in carrying out event activity on what will be a major construction site and 7-3 1 Staff Report I~`r~.x~,ivER CommunityServicesDepartment www.kitchenerta suggested that a project of this scale would be best accomplished by relocating KRHC games and other event activity for a period of time. • The reviewers also indicated the project is risky from a cost perspective. They stated there is the potential for upwards of $10 -$15 million in additional site servicing costs and exposures. In general terms the base budget for the seating addition that the KRHC presented to council was reasonable. However the additional site development costs and exposures could mean upwards of $65 million would be required to complete the project. The following paragraph is a key component of this report. "During the process the information from the Design and Costing Review was presented to the KRHC who acknowledged the report contents. They then made a major decision to change direction and began to investigate other more cost effective approaches for expanding The Aud. As a result of their investigation they found a less costly, albeit scaled down approach that addresses their goals for expansion. Detailed information on the alternative approach the Kitchener Rangers are now proposing will be presented later in this report. In addition, the KRHC will appear as a delegation to provide an overview of the new proposal along with details on their business case" 3. Audit of Kitchener Memorial Auditorium Complex (Cardillo Arena and Twin Pad) The City of Kitchener enlisted the services of IRC Building Science Group Inc. to complete a condition analysis of the Kitchener Auditorium Complex facilities. The purpose of the audit was to gather comprehensive information regarding the facility to ensure it could support a major expansion. IRC was also engaged to determine the long term capital investment that would be required if the City was making the commitment to keep the Aud as its main spectator venue for an additional 30 year period or more. The condition analysis applies only to the Cardillo Arena and twin pad components of the complex and not Centennial Stadium or Jack Couch Park. The scope of the review was limited to examining existing building systems, equipment and infrastructure and providing a recommendation on replacement, lifecycle and cost. The scope did not include the new expansion design. The condition analysis did not involve any intrusive testing and while it is comprehensive it is high level in nature. Regardless of whether an addition to the Aud is approved or not, this analysis will form part the development of a detailed asset management plan for the complex. A staff team from Facilities Management, Asset Management and Enterprise have reviewed the audit and have added items related to functions within the venue such as: • CCTV/Security equipment • Interior acoustic ceiling replacement (Cardillo Arena) • PA/Sound System • Communications Room These items total an additional $500,000 in replacement value and are included in the numbers below. The audit data is broken down as follows: 7-4 1 Staff Report I~`r~.x~,ivER CommunityServicesDepartment www.kitchenerta Replacement/Retrofits Required: Immediate $ 10,000 0-2 years $ 2,100,000 2-5 years $ 4, 000, 000 5-10 years $ 5, 000, 000 10-20 years 3 700 000 Total $ 14, 810, 000 Estimated costs do not include the following: • An inflationary factor: estimated costs are 2011 dollars -add an allowance of 2% per year which approximates $2,500,000) • Additional costs: fees, disbursements, taxes, LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) initiatives, contingencies, environmental requirements (add an allowance of 40% which approximates $6,000,000 ) • site improvements/requirements, site servicing upgrades (not included) • accessibility modifications or upgrades as legislated by AODA (Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act) requirements (not quantifiable at this time as the AODA legislation is not finalized) Taking into account the basic audit estimates ($14,800,000) and adding the additional costs ($6,000,000) and inflation ($2,500,000) brings the total projected cost estimate to maintain the Aud over the 20 year period to more than $23,000,000 (not including site improvements/site servicing or AODA requirements). It is also important to note there is a funding shortfall to undertake the Capital maintenance program recommended in the audit. This should be addressed through the City's capital budget process and the evolving asset management program. 4. Ranger Business Case Review and Comments A staff team comprised of staff from finance and the Aud had begun to review the original Ranger business case. They found the assumptions used to complete the business case were reasonable and the calculations were accurate. Work on this review was halted once the KRHC indicated they were moving in a different direction and were beginning to consider other alternatives. 5. Financing the Original Proposed Expansion It was acknowledged from the beginning that the City did not have the debt capacity to support a $44 million loan to the KRHC to finance the project. Resolving this issue was going to be a significant challenge. Complicating the situation was the fact that the KRHC business case was contingent on receiving a loan with a lending rate consistent with municipal debentures (debenture interest rates are less than those available through traditional lending institutions). In addition the KRHC identified challenges in securing a loan from a traditional lending institution because 7-5 1 Staff Report I~`r~.x~,ivER CommunityServicesDepartment www.kitchenerta they don't own The Aud and their overall equity is limited to the value of their franchise which was less than the loan required for the original expansion plan. A team led by Legal and Finance began the process of determining what alternatives existed to support a loan to the Kitchener Rangers. Three (3) options were considered as follows: 1. Turn ownership of venue over to trust (including the KRHC) and/or corporation, being a special purpose vehicle ("SPV") which would then have some equity to pursue private financing at a reasonable lending rate. 2. Recruit a private partner who would be willing to design, build, own, and operate the venue based on 30 year lease guarantees from the City and the KRHC. 3. Council agrees to issue the debt and provide the loan. Most of the work that took place revolved around creating a SPV (trust or corporation). The City's Legal Department engaged an external advisor who identified a number of concerns that would need to be resolved. The primary concerns dealt with transparency, costs of creating a SPV, loss of control of the venue, premium payments and ultimately who would be responsible for the venue should the business plan fail. Under any scenario involving a private partner, if anything goes awry with the business plan it would be practically impossible for the City to abandon or detach itself from the Aud. Also, the private partner would have difficulty obtaining financing on terms as desirable as those that would be obtained by the City. The KRHC, City staff and the external adviser did not have the opportunity to fully investigate and resolve the above concerns as the KRHC expansion plan was downscaled as this review was evolving. It is the position of the Legal and Finance Divisions that with the reduced scope the size of the loan requested by the KRHC under their new proposal it is not large enough to justify the expense or uncertainties of setting up the SPV and hence should no longer be considered. Where applicable the executive summary of each of the actual reports have been included as an attachment. Appendix 1 -Goals & Needs Review Executive Summary Appendix 2A -Proposed Design and Costing Contractor Peer Review Comments Appendix 2B - Terms of Reference for Peer Review Appendix 3 -Building Condition Assessment Executive Summary * Full consultant reports are available online at www.kitchener.ca under Calendar of Events for September 26, 2011. New Expansion Proposed by the Kitchener Rangers As indicated earlier in this report the KRHC did determine there is the potential to expand the facility in a scaled down and less costly approach. They will be appearing as a delegation to make a presentation requesting council consider a 1000 seat expansion. Details on the proposed interim seating expansion are as follows: 7-6 1 Staff Report I~`r~.x~,ivER CommunityServicesDepartment www.kitchenerta - Current seating capacity for hockey including suites - 6268 - Additional seats -1000 - Total expanded seating capacity for hockey with additional seats - 7268 - Total capacity for hockey including standing room -approximately 7600 - 7800 - Encompasses -additional 3rd level concourse, concessions, washrooms, renovated team space including dressing room, player services, offices and retail areas along with a 4th level media room and loft suites (non game view). - Proposed construction timeline -February 2012 to November 2012 - Total cost - $9.6 million - Revenue -100% of the ticket revenue and Capital Reserve Fund (CRF) associated with the expanded seats would be used to fund the capital cost of the project and the incremental operating expenses. - Game day costs -additional game day costs associated with additional event staffing (ushers, doorpersons and clean-up) would be funded from additional ticket sales - Additional utility costs -there will be a minor incremental increase in utility costs and these will also be identified and funded from additional ticket sales From the City of Kitchener's perspective, there are some benefits and concerns with the Rangers revised proposal. The benefits are as follows: - significantly less costly and less risky from a timeline perspective than the original expansion proposal - fully funded by a 3rd party (KRHC) - KRHC would assume cost overruns - additional food and beverage revenue resulting in more lucrative service and supply contracts for the City - additional ticket surcharges accrue to the Centre in the Square - resolves a community need by addressing the current season ticket waiting list - fewer impacts on the site and community than the original proposal - transitional solution for at least 15 years providing time to consider and potentially plan for a larger spectator arena in the future The concerns are as follows: - negatively impacts City's debt position - further limits the City's ability to fund unforeseen issues - construction period event losses - construction event losses becoming permanent losses - impact on systems (ice quality) - the Aud capital maintenance and upgrade account is underfunded over the next 10 years - does not address the identified need for a venue with a capacity of 9700 seats - the business case dictates some suite revenue would accrue to the Rangers at the end of the City's suite payback period to help fund this project - it is not expected this expansion would increase other event activity Steve Bienkowski, Chief Operating Officer of the KRHC will appear as delegation to provide an overview of the new expansion proposal and deliver the updated business plan. 7-7 1 I~~r;H~iv~R Staff Re ort p Camm unity Services Departm ent ~rw.k~~~~~r~erca Of significant note is the KRHC is suggesting this expansion is intended to be a transitional solution fora 15 year period. Their contention is the venue would still be deficient from a seating capacity perspective (note the requirement for 9700 seats in the goals and needs study). As a result the KRHC will be requesting the City commence a process some time in the future to consider a new 10,000 or more seat facility to serve the community's needs. ALIGNMENT WITH CITY OF KITCHENER STRATEGIC PLAN: This report aligns with two community priorities identified in the City of Kitchener Strategic Plan. These are as follows: Leadership and Community Engagement -Work with funding partners to address gaps in grant funding for individuals and groups in the community. Development - Maintain a balanced approach to replacing and/or expanding existing infrastructure and building new infrastructure. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: Below is a matrix showing a comparison of costs required for the 4 Options -build new, original expansion proposal, new expansion proposal and status quo. Based on the high cost of building a new spectator arena and the fact there are no funds allocated to a new arena, staff have recommended that building a new arena no longer be considered as an immediate option. Similarly the original expansion proposal has been discarded by the KRHC and should no longer be considered as a viable option. Option A: Option B1: Option B2: Option C: Build a New Venue 3,500 Seat 1,000 Seat Maintain (10,000 -11,000 Expansion Expansion Status Capacity) (Original Proposal) (New Proposal) Quo Total Investment for New Components $100 - $150 million $60 - $65 million $9.6 million $0 (Interest not included) KRHC Contribution (Interest paid by $44 million $44 million $9.6 million NIA KRHC not shown) Unbudgeted Tax Funding Required for $56 - $106 million $16 - $21 million $0 $0 New Constructionlsite Work Notes: 1. New component cost is based on work undertaken and reported by the KRHC 2. Option A -build new is a very high level estimate (Class C) that does not include private land acquisition 3. 100% of revenue related to additional seats will be retained by the KRHC to fund the new components (exception -extra operational costs related to expanded components) 4. KRHC are proposing Option B2 7-8 1 Staff Report I~`r~.x~,ivER CommunityServicesDepartment www.kitchenerta The chart above shows no tax funding requirement for Option B2, but also assumes the City issues the debt for the project, and is then fully repaid by the KRHC. Uvhile this would theoretically not have any impact on the tax base, it would still be reported as City debt and the City would be liable to make payments, regardless of the Rangers' ability to pay. Even with the reduced scope of the new expansion proposal, there is still significant concern about increasing the City's debt level beyond what has previously been planned and forecast. The City's current debt position is trending beyond the target thresholds for measures such as debt charges as a per cent of tax levy, debt per household, and debt to reserve ratio. Any additional debt, even debt that is fully recoverable from a third party, will worsen the City's position relative to these indicators. At the same time debt has been increasing, City reserve levels have been decreasing. Some of this is due to planned funding of initiatives and programs (e.g. equipment replacements), but some of this is due to unplanned situations (e.g. Gaukel Street coal tar remediation). Taking on additional debt, at a time when the City already has limited flexibility, could hamper the City's ability to respond to unforeseen circumstances in the future. Updated debt graphs which include the potential KRHC debt issue are included in Appendix 4 and will be elaborated on as part of the presentation to committee. Another option available to the KRHC would be to finance the new expansion proposal themselves through traditional lending markets or other means. Staff are aware of a new lending program through Infrastructure Ontario (10~ that may provide a loan to the KRHC at rates that are approximately 0.4% higher than what the City would obtain through 10. The KRHC have met with 10 to determine their eligibility for this reduced rate financing, but have not heard back yet on whether they qualify for this new funding program. Traditional lending markets have rates that are higher than either the 10 program or City debentures. For modeling purposes staff have provided rates that are 1 % to 3% higher than the City's debenture rate as outlined in the chart below. The chart below shows the difference in costs for different lending options and is meant to be illustrative only. Each scenario assumes that $9.6M is borrowed for 15 years and payments are made semi-annually. The City issue rate is 3.25% as posted on the 10 website on September 13, 2011. If the KRHC are eligible for lending under the 10 program, their rate would be higher - on September 13t", 2011 it was shown as 3.65%. If they do not qualify, lending rates from a traditional lender would be even higher, so staff have included rates that are 1 %, 2% and 3% higher than what the would pay if the City issued the loan. Rate Total Payment Difference from City Issue Difference Per Year 3.25% $12, 205, 656 $0 $0 3.65% $12, 551, 821 $346,165 $23, 078 4.25% $13, 081, 248 $875, 591 $58, 373 5.25% $13,990,319 $1,784,663 $118,978 6.25% $14,931,954 $2,726,298 $181,753 A final recommendation with respect to funding will be presented on November 7. 7-9 1 Staff Report I~`r~.x~,ivER CommunityServicesDepartment www.kitchenerta COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT: Given the proposed project is no longer a large scale expansion nor a new arena staff will mirror the community engagement process that was undertaken when the KRHC undertook the last expansion in 2008. Staff will arrange for a neighbourhood meeting that will be advertised using an array of communications tools. While it will focus on neighbourhood issues the meeting will be promoted across the city to community members who may be interested in the project. The project details will be outlined on the City's website and also promoted on our social media channels including Facebook and Twitter. In addition to receiving comments on Facebook and Twitter, an email account and the corporate phone line will be set up to receive messages from the public. ACKNOWLEDGED BY: Jeff Willmer, Deputy CAO, Community Services Department 7-10 APPENDIX 1 Goals and Needs Feasibility Review CSD-11-102 -Spectator Facility Review -Phase 1 7-11 Deloitte City of Kitchener Kitchener Memorial Auditorium Complex Goals and Needs Feasibility Review July 20, 2011 7-12 Executive Summary The City of Kitchener retained Deloitte to undertake a goals and needs study, examining the market support for expanding the Aud beyond its current seating capacity of approximately 6,268 seats. The need for such a study resulted from a proposal by the Kitchener Rangers to expand the Aud's seating capacity to approximately 10,000 permanent seats. Kitchener's Memorial Auditorium Complex (the "Aud") is a 6,268-seat (6,900-person capacity including standing room) spectator arena that is home to the Kitchener Rangers. rnarKet Support for expansion Since the 2000-01 season, the Kitchener Rangers have averaged approximately 5,843 fans per game, a figure which when compared to the total fixed-seating capacity of the Aud, represents near or full capacity. Since 2002-03 the Rangers average attendance has exceeded seating capacity. Based on discussions with Rangers management, we understand that this overall demand for tickets, coupled with a capped waiting list for season tickets, has served as the basis for their desire to see the Aud expanded significantly beyond its current 6,268 fixed seats. Because of the strong demand for Kitchener Rangers' tickets, it would be reasonable to assume that with a larger venue in Kitchener, average game attendance would increase. Kitchener's market penetration rate of 3.0% locally and 1.4% regionally is concluded tounder-represent what the Kitchener Rangers could potentially achieve, given that the Team has consistently sold out its home games, has a capped waiting list of 1,200 and a season subscriber renewal rate of greater than 95%. Based on our assessment, our opinion is that the market penetration potential for the Kitchener Rangers (irrespective of arena size) would approximate 4.0% of its local population (1.8% of its regional population base), or roughly 8,225 fans per game. Assuming a "target" capacity figure of approximately 85%, a building in the range of 9,700 seats (including standing room) would appear to be appropriate. Given Kitchener and Kitchener CMA population growth predictions of nearly 6.5% between 2010 and 2015 (as shown in Appendix B), the future market penetration potential for the Kitchener Rangers could certainly increase beyond 4.0%, further supporting an expansion to 9,700 seats. From an entertainment event perspective, the Kitchener market is viewed as relatively robust; however, Kitchener is located in the middle of a highly competitive market between London, Hamilton and Toronto, a location that would suggest an expanded Aud would compete for acts and consumer entertainment spending directly with venues located in these centres (comprising the Centre in the Square, the John Labatt Centre, Copps Coliseum, the Air Canada Centre, Rogers Centre and the Molson Amphitheatre, among others). Despite this additional competition which an expanded Aud would give rise to, it is noted that Kitchener has a higher subscription rate compared to competing markets; moreover, Kitchener-Waterloo area residents were found in a recent survey to have attended a greater number of entertainment events than do individuals from the Hamilton area. As such, it is estimated that a 9,700-seat Aud would be able to increase its total business from non-hockey events and attract an additional six to eight events. In attracting these events, it is assumed that any such expansion of the Aud will potentially include modifications to allow the building to function adequately from an event operation 1 staging perspective (i.e., event staging issues such as event loading 1 unloading, back of house storage and circulation, interior venue clear heights, rigging, ability to raise /lower the centre-hung scoreboard, etc.). City of Kitchener Memorial Auditorium Complex Goals and Needs Feasibility Review ~-1 In reviewing the venue capacity requirements of select provincial, national and international figure skating, curling and hockey events, it is noted that a number of these events would only be hosted in a given facility /area every 5 -15 years, and have either set strict minimum seating requirements or minimum financial guarantees. For those events and competitions that have moved away from strict minimum seating capacities, these events are requiring minimum financial contributions along with other minimum facility, accommodations and operational requirements (in addition to broader city 1 community requirements). In this regard, bid packages being submitted are increasingly becoming more detailed and sophisticated, and in some cases are offering the event "owner" with financial guarantees above the minimum amount required in the bid documents. By default, therefore, larger facilities are required in order to ensure potential ticket sales will be sufficient in order to cover the monetary guarantees. Based on our review, it would appear that an expanded Aud would allow the City to capture more of these events; however, as some of these events require a minimum number of top level hotel rooms to be located in the immediate vicinity of the venue, it may prove difficult for the City to attract these events. Re-cap of Key Findings 1. With respect to spectator events, the Kitchener Rangers represent more than 50% of both the event activity and paid spectator attendance associated with the Aud. As such, there is value in considering their need for a seating expansion as the key decision driver. 2. Based on the experiences of other OHL markets which have built new or expanded facilities (along with the Rangers attendance growth related to previous expansions), and the proven strong demand for tickets in Kitchener, it is reasonable to assume that average game attendance would increase with a larger building. 3. Ten (10) new buildings have opened in OHL markets over the last 15 years, with capacities near or greater than 5,000 seats, making for more intense competition for other events and sporting activity in Ontario, thereby impacting Kitchener's ability to grow its event portfolio now, and in the future. 4. A new or expanded building's proximity to major markets is a key factor in determining the number of major events that will potentially be booked, with those buildings (such as the Aud) that are closer to major markets attracting less events. 5. With the exception of some majorA-list acts, the City of Kitchener has a very similar event portfolio to the JLC in London (which is considered a major event market in Canada), but spread over two venues -the Aud and the Centre. 6. Toronto is the dominant market in Southern Ontario, and impacts the ability of venues in other nearby markets, including Kitchener and Hamilton, to obtain A-list acts. This is borne out by Hamilton, which currently has a facility large enough (17,400) to support A-list acts, but does not receive nearly the number of acts that Toronto does, in spite of its size. 7. Kitchener and the Greater Region currently have a healthy economy, are projected to continue to grow in population rapidly, and have an age demographic that will support OHL hockey and thus, support an expanded facility. 8. Based on the analysis of the regional market penetration potential, the Kitchener Rangers would draw an average of 8,225 fans per game, supporting the need for an arena of 9,700 seats. 9. An arena facility of 9,700 seats would provide capacity for future local l regional population growth. ©Deloitte & Touche LLP and affiliated entities. City of Kitchener Memorial Auditorium Complex Goals and Needs Feasibility Review ~-14 10. Kitchener is considered a sophisticated market for concerts 1 shows, and will draw attendees from a wider area, but is also impacted by GTA venues, which are able to draw major entertainment acts. 11. Assuming that some of the current logistical issues facing the Aud are resolved during construction, with a 9,700 seat facility the Aud could attract approximately 6 - 8 additional entertainment acts per year. 12. It could potentially be possible to host a few additional major sporting events with a 9,700 seat venue, including the Canadian Curling Association Brier and World Junior Hockey Championships. 13. Even with an expanded facility, external factors such a lack of high quality hotels and the distant proximity of hotels to the Aud will be limiting factors in hosting some of these events. 14. There will be a growing requirement to provide financial guarantees for major events so the risk factor will increase if an expanded Aud were to pursue larger events. Rp~nmmpnrlatinn Based on our findings, it is concluded that an expansion to 9,700 seats would be appropriate given current and projected market conditions and the Kitchener Ranger attendance demand. An additional benefit, while more challenging, is the potential to capture some additional entertainment, as well as other major sporting events that are not currently realized. There will be some additional operating cost and risks associated with a larger venue that need to be considered and as a result a detailed financial review should be undertaken prior to any major expansion in order to effectively inform City of Kitchener officials/decision makers with respect to these costs and risks. 7-15 APPENDIX 2A Peer Review of Original Proposals for Expansion of Kitchener Memorial Auditorium CSD-11-102 -Spectator Facility Review -Phase 1 7-16 MELLOUL-BLAMEY CONSTRUCTION. INC. 700 Rupert Street, Unit A, Waterloo, Ontario N2V 265 Phone (519) 886-8850 ext. 240 Fax (5.19) 886-8898 E-mail: joel.melloul~melloul.com Website: www.melloul.com HONESTY • INTEGRITY • PRIDE OF WORKMANSHIP Jan 19, 2011 City of Kitchener Facilities Management 200 King St. W, 4th Floor Kitchener, ON, N2G 4G7 Attention: Ms. Cynthia Fletcher, Director, Facilities Management RE: Peer Review of Proposals for Expansion of Kitchener Memorial Auditorium Dear Ms. Fletcher, Thank you for expressing an interest in our opinions on the proposed expansion proposals for the Kitchener Memorial Auditorium. Although we are a full service builder and would appreciate the opportunity to continue constructing projects for the City, we have reviewed the proposals in an unbiased manner without trying to fabricate future construction opportunities for our firm. on this site. We have endeavored to critique these reports from the viewpoint of taxpayer with significant construction knowledge. The individuals from our firm who took part in this peer review include myself and the following: Tim Henhoeffer, General Superintendent Steve Hanley, VP Construction Jeff Shantz, VP Project Development Albert Versteeg, Chief Estimator Eric Costa, Estimator Glen Uttley, Controller Neil Aitchison, Marketing All of these individuals represent construction professionals with a strong knowledge of the industry, the community, the Aud and the Rangers. The basis for this peer review includes the review of a proposal prepared by Ellis Don1666 in February 2009 for a brand new 11,000 seat facility costing in excess of $150M , and a proposal prepared by Ball/BBB in January 2010 fora 3,200 seat addition to the existing facility costing approximately $52M. 1.0 Brand New Facility _..__. 1:.1 Budget & Schedule Upon review of the of the Ellis Don budget, we confirm that the budget and schedule seems generally in line with the order of magnitude you would expect given these design schematics for a brand new facility. Although they are one of Canada's largest 7-17 MELLOUL-BLAMEY CONSTRUCTION INC.......Page 2 contractors with previous experiences building similar facilities, the design and the builder fees seem excessive. The budget presented for parking structures is typical for a concrete structure, however we have found lately that precast parking structures can be as much as half of the cost of cast in place concrete and if a parking structure is entertained for the site, a precast concrete. option should be seriously considered. 1.2 Construction Delivery Method What is troubling with their proposal is the. suggestion of a design build delivery method. From an owner's perspective, for simple. industrial buildings where an owner's need to control process and have input into the design is limited, this process works well. For a new Aud, I would expect the owner would want to have tremendous input into the final outcome of the design and be involved in construction, but with the design build format, the owner gives up much of the control to the. builder and effectively simply waits for the design and then the keys to eventually see what they get as a final product. The "open book" design build format that is being proposed seems even more troubling. Typically in design build, after successfully responding to a detailed RFP, the builder takes on the design and construction for a fixed lump sum and, is at risk for both. This is how the owner benefits by using this format as he has downloaded all the risk in exchange for little or no control of the design or construction process. The "open book" version of design build being.suggested still really only benefits the builder 'as now there is no risk to them to fix the contract amount yet they still control all the design and construction and the owner's input to the process is still minimized, Ideally a new build such as this could better follow one of two construction delivery formats, either a traditional fixed bid format or a construction management format. Since this is new construction, and assuming there is sufficient time, any qualified team of designers selected by the owner should be able to create a well thought out detailed set of plans and specifications which can then form the basis of a tender call for competitive fixed price bids from qualified builders. This traditional method ensures significant control is still maintained by the owner throughout the design & construction process, the consultants assume the design risk and the builder assumes the'typical risks associated. with fixed price contracts. Alternatively, with a construction management format, the owner can still Control and be part of design and construction, but in exchange for opening up the books, the owner assumes part of the cost risk: Ideally a good construction manager will excel in managing this risk for an owner. The construction management format tends to deliver projects with higher quality subtrades thereby reducing schedules and conflict and increasing overall quality, it tends to be a better experience for all parties involved in the process and is likely the reason this format of construction is now as common as the traditional methods. 2.0 Renovation to the Existing Facility _.~ 2.1 Budget Upon review of the Ball budget we confirm that the pricing provided for new work seems generally in line with a very basic facility, similar in finish level to any typical community rink. Many line items covered by subtrade budgets are in keeping with industry standards. Amounts carried for roof removal, rough carpentry and concrete work are all reasonable. The amount carried for install of doors and millwork is excessive and should likely only be a third of the cost presented. There is approximately $100K that should be added for minor missing items such as toilet partitions, washroom accessories, counter shutters and life safety anchors. We feel that given the size of the parking lots on the site along with the revised servicing and access requirements, that a budget of $3,200/stall is not sufficient. We would feel more comfortable with a budget of $S,OOOlstall, this would translate additionally to almost $3 Million to be added to the budget for the site works. 7-18 MELLOUL-BLAMEY CONSTRUCTION INC.......Page 3 The tie-in from new to existing building is assumed to be covered under the "Make Good" line item of $512K. We feel this line item is quite understated and could easily~be more likely measured in the millions, especially if it is expected to fast track this work throughout the off season. Also the "Building Code Upgrades" line item of $2M might be sufficient, but the potential for this number to double or triple as the old building is partially dismantled and then reassembled is highly likely as it is assumed the city will have an obligation to rectify any non-conforming areas that are uncovered. Items that have not been addressed at all in the budget include provisions for poor soil conditions encountered and the requirements for underpinning since the new footings (which will be massive) will be adjacent existing older ones. The Earthworks budget of $256K will not be sufficient to cover for this work if it is required and we would recommend budgeting at least $500K-$1 M here. It is not apparent whether the budget includes for LEED or if it will be even required or feasible on this kind of a renovation. If LEED is required in some way, the budget could be increased anywhere up to say 10% overall; or nothing at all, it depends on many factors but should be considered in some way. Another un-addressed cost is the disruption to the lower amenity and dressing room spaces. These functions will have to. be moved while all the lower structure is built within those existing spaces. There may be time to get this work started in the off season, but the likelihood it will be completed in time for the hockey season is slim, so funds should be allotted somewhere to provide temporary spaces for amenities, change rooms, concessions etc... throughout the construction period. These temporary facilities could be cost measured in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. And finally it does not appear the general conditions cost magnitude reflects a project with such intricacies related to the unique scheduling and working in an occupied space, the costs budgeted reflect a more typical project, and this one is definitely not typical. Just as an example, it will be a full time task for several people just to maintain emergency exits from occupied spaces through construction spaces to the outside. Although there is a contingency in the budget, these funds should be reserved for items no one has even conceived of at this time. A rule'of thumb, if you can think of it today, make it a separate line item in your budget and leave the unknown mysteries to be covered by the contingency. 2.2 Schedule The construction timeframe of 20 months has a chance of being achievable if the design ends up being very basic and no problems are encountered during design and construction. Neither scenarios are likely, and the concept of removing and replacing the roof in the summer off season leaves no time to deal with any problems whatsoever. The complexities of these tie ins should not be underestimated as these many knowable and unknowable tasks will drive the entire schedule. Even the exterior walls .and new structure within the existing spaces will take more than a summer to complete and thus as mentioned above, will disrupt the functions of the lower amenity spaces and change rooms right from the start before even getting to the roof. Of course anything can be done, and builders would love the challenge this project presents, but it is likely the city. does not have an unlimited budget to fast track such a complex renovation project through such critical stages of work. The 20 .month schedule would likely suffice if the builder had full access to the building for the full duration of construction. In any case, it would be prudent for the Rangers to arrange an alternate venue for one season while the work is being completed just in case the facilities are not able to be occupied in time. 2.3 Construction Delivery Method There is no doubt that the only method feasible for this kind of a renovation project is the construction management method. It will be virtually impossible for an.y architect, engineer or builder to foresee all the issues, and downloading the risk of the unknowns to 7-19 MELLOUL-BLAMEY CONSTRUCTION INC.......Page 4 others will artificially inflate costs and still not protect the owner from significant changes to the contract, therefore the most effective way for the city to manage the risk and cost impacts of these changes will be to have an open book construction management. agreement with a trusted, qualified builder. 3.0 Conclusions It might seem logical from a taxpayer .perspective to follow the least expensive solution to the problem and support the concept of a renovation to the Aud, but we feel that solution has a greater chance of failing to meet expectations. The construction schedule leaves no room for error on a style of project that will be rife with problems uncovered each day to be resolved by many professionals. The consequences of missed target dates will be disastrous for the Rangers and the fans and the city. The current budget for the Aud reno seems reasonable but upon further reflection it did not prove difficult to identify potentially another $10M in potential cost increases or exposures, not including the items no one has even thought about. The more realistic and reasonable approach to the schedule for the renovation option would be for the Rangers to vacate the .premises entirely for one season, allowing construction to proceed unhindered at full pace. But, at the end of it all, for approximately $60M-$65M the city will have an additional 3,200 cheap seats inwhat-will remain to.be primarily an old outdated building. Conversely, a new facility built on the existing grounds somewhere (likely the running track), can be designed and constructed using conventional delivery methods, yielding aggressive pricing and realistic achievable construction time frames. The Rangers can continue as per usual in the old Aud until the new facility is ready to be turned over so there is no schedule risk. The risk of escalating costs. during construction will be next to nil compared to a renovation as it is significantly more efficient to design and construct new structures versus complex renovations. The budget of $150M is reasonable, perhaps it could be done for less and perhaps this option could even be designed in such a way to easily accommodate further seat expansions in the future, Also, increased parking needs could be further accommodated with a cost effective precast concrete structure. In general terms, a renovation project to the Aud will be an undesirable high risk project costing approximately $20,000 for each new seat, whereas a brand new facility. will attract aggressive pricing and will cost roughly $12,OOOlseat. So from that viewpoint, current and. future tax payers will. be better served in this community by investing in a new facility. Band aid solutions are rarely viewed as optimal and in this-case we believe that an addition to the Aud does not make financial or construction sense. Perhaps today, if a new facility is still too expensive for the community, the best approach might be to do nothing to the Aud until the community can truly afford to invest in a proper new facility. Thanks again for engaging our firm to provide you with this review, we hope it has provided you with sufficient feedback to enhance your decision process on the merits of expansion at this site. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you need any further clarifications. Sincerely, Melloul-Blarney Construction Inc. Joel Melloul, B.A.Sc. VP Estimating 519.886.8850 ext. 240 7-20 APPENDIX 2B Terms of Reference for Peer Review CSD-11-102 -Spectator Facility Review -Phase 1 7-21 1 KID°cxr~v~R Peer Review of Costing of Proposal Submitted by Kitchener Ranger Hockey Club to expand the Kitchener Memorial Auditorium Proposal Prepared by: Ellis Don/ BBB Architects/ SCI International Peer Review to~be conducted by City of Kitchener staff and Melloul-Blarney cast consultants The purpose of the peer review is to examine the information presented in the Kitchener Ranger's proposal and provide a high level assessment report to City of Kitchener steering committee, Corporate Leadership Team and Council. Reviewwill include: the assumptions .made by those who prepared the proposal • items included in the proposal scope • items excluded from the proposal scope and high. level estimates . • construction format high level review of casts provided • high level review of design concept At this point, the submitted proposal includes proposed costs based on a~ scope/design developed by the Rangers Hockey Club. In addition, there may be other items that need to be considered and included in the total projected cost. 1. Assumptions that form the basis of the proposal: o Construction format will be design-build o Sub trades tendered to an "open book" basis to pre-qualified suppliers and subcontractors o City of Kitchener Development charges do not apply assume land provided at no costs 2. Included in Proposal ~ _ o Includes: design fees, disbursements for work within scope}, consultant fees abased on design-build arrangement} o Construction ~ ~ ~ . o Furnishing, Fixtures, Equipment based on scope of proposal 1 7 ~ 22 . ~ ~ 1 ~ ~r 3. Items not included in Proposal o' Accommodation of increased Parking o Potential Relocation of grandstand o Potential Relocation of~existingsports fields, bleachers o Potential demolition of any existing facilities on site o Abnormal soil or environments! conditions/Environmental Assessment o Geotech Investigation o Legal fees/Reference plan - o LEER ~ . o Kitchener Rangers/City of Kitchener project administration/in house costs o Financing o Moving/Re-location casts o Parking management systems o Road Improvements o Facility Management and Operations Business Impact -concessions etc} o Site servicing requirements/Site conditions (Utility Upgrades, re-locations, extensions} . o Specialty surface treatments . o Lighting requirements . o Landscaping o Public Art Component o HST These items should be included in an overall business plan. 2 7-23 APPENDIX 3 Building Condition Assessment CSD-11-102 -Spectator Facility Review -Phase 1 7-24 Kitchener Memorial Auditorium Complex 400 East Avenue, Kitchener, Ontario Prepared for: City of Kitchener -Facilities Management 83 Elmsdale Drive Kitchener, Ontario N2E 1H7 • IRC Building Sciences Group Inc. Engineers and Consultants 4026 Meadowbrook Drive, Unit 131 London, Ontario, N6L 1C7 Tel: 519.652.5985 Fax: 519.652.9926 Fax: 519.652.9926 Roof Consultants Institute February 11, 2011 IRC 10776-LB10-103CR ~oo~~ o ~ ~o ~ o o ~~~~e~~la~nal ~1I~111~~~~ ~°~ ova Ontario ~~ ~~~~ 7-25 Building Condition Assessment Executive Summary ' Building Condition Assessment- Executive Summary ., . Kitchener Memorial Auditorium Complex - 400 East Avenue, Kitchener, Ontario 1.1 Terms of Reference IRC Building Sciences Group Inc. (IRC) was authorized by Mr. Doug Hergott of the City of Kitchener to perform a condition assessment of the Kitchener Memorial Auditorium Complex located at 400 East Avenue in Kitchener, Ontario. The purpose of the condition assessment was to review the major capital components of the facility to determine the general condition and to provide recommendations for replacement /repair complete with budget estimates over next 20 year period. 1.2 Scope of Work The scope of work included: 1. A meeting with Client representatives to discuss the building and any known issues that exist, including a history of all previous repairs, investigations and assessments; 2. A review of all available drawings and documents provided to IRC. Assessment reports provided to IRC by the Client will be included in this report as an appendix; 3. A comprehensive visual review of the Kitchener Memorial Auditorium Complex including the exterior cladding, roofs, windows, doors, interior components (fixed furnishings, kitchen equipment, rink components), mechanical, electrical, plumbing, refrigeration systems, fire & life safety systems, elevators and related components; 4. A comprehensive visual review of the Centennial Stadium Grandstand structure and related components; 5. The preparation of a report, complete with photographs, documenting the results of the assessment, repair/ replacement recommendations and budgetary costs. 6. No destructive investigation was performed to determine the as-built construction of the building unless specifically indicated in this report; therefore, all references to the building assemblies are based on the visual and drawing review only. 1.3 Building Key Plan IRC 10776-LB10-103CR 7-26 ' Building Condition Assessment- Executive Summary ., . Kitchener Memorial Auditorium Complex - 400 East Avenue, Kitchener, Ontario 1.4 Building Description The Kitchener Memorial Auditorium Complex is a multi-use facility located at 400 East Avenue in Kitchener, Ontario. It includes a main ice rink (Dom Cardillo Arena} with a seating capacity of 6,268 (6,900 including standing room), two smaller arenas (Kinsmen and Kiwanis Arenas), a baseball park (Jack Couch Stadium), a track and field /soccer 1 football field (Centennial Stadium) with a grandstand seating capacity of 3,200 and a skate park. The original arena opened in 1951 and the facility has been expanded several times since its initial construction. In 1967, a Centennial project saw the construction of Centennial Stadium and Jack Couch Park on the Auditorium Grounds and in 1987 an addition was constructed to the north of the original arena which featured twin Olympic ice pads, a teaching theatre, a fitness centre, viewing lounges, dressing rooms and banquet facilities. In 1998, an addition was built to the east of the Dom Cardillo Arena to provide additional facilities for use by the Kitchener Rangers Hockey Club which includes a dressing room, a fitness centre, administration offices, and retail space. Circa 2003, a renovation project was initiated in the Dom Cardillo Arena that included the construction of media gondolas, corporate suites, additional seating, restaurant and dressing room upgrades, and the displacement of the concessions beyond the exterior walls to create larger corridors. Since then, several other renovation projects have been completed throughout the facility to upgrade components and improve accessibility. According to the drawings, the Dom Cadillo Arena consists of structural steel framing on cast-in-place concrete foundations, supporting open web steel joists (OWSJ) and a combination of steel and concrete floor and roof slabs. The exterior wall cladding consist of a combination of exterior insulated finish system (EIFS), corrugated metal, 4" architectural concrete block masonry or painted concrete block masonry over interior concrete block masonry and steel stud framing. 2" of rigid polystyrene insulation or fibreglass batt insulation has been provided within the walls not clad with EIFS. Similarly, the Twin Pads and Administration Corridor also consist of structural steel framing on cast-in-place concrete foundations, supporting OWSJ roof framing and a combination of steel and concrete floor and roof slabs. The exterior wall assemblies consist of 4" and 6" architectural concrete block masonry, 1" air space, 1" rigid polystyrene insulation with vapour barrier adhesive and 6" interior concrete block masonry. The roofing membrane system is Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC) in all areas with the exception of the Kitchener Ranger Hockey Club addition and one lower roof area at the southeast corner of the Administration Corridor which are built-up roofing (BUR} and 2-ply modified bitumen roofing systems respectively. The Auditorium HVAC system is generally provided through roof mounted equipment. There are packaged roof top units, custom heat/cool units, kitchen make-up air (MUA) units, and exhaust fans mounted on the roof. Additional heat is provided with steam and gas fired unit heaters, and steam finned tube radiation throughout. The ice surface is cooled through an ammonia-brine system. The piping headers are steel pipe and were replaced in roughly 1990. The rink is dehumidified with three dehumidifiers located at high level in the rink area. The plumbing system is comprised of copper domestic hot and cold water piping, and copper drain, waste and vent piping. The piping generally appears to be original to the building construction. Plumbing fixtures are a variety of ages, replaced on an as need basis over the years. The building is equipped with a 2500A, 600V, 3 phase, 4 wire, electrical service entrance panel, fed underground from a pad mounted transformer installed exterior to the building. The transformer is fed underground from a high voltage overhead utility plant on the South side of Sherboune Avenue. The service entrance panel is located on a fenced-in mezzanine in the loading dock area at the South mid-point of the building. The panel back feeds the original electrical room in the Auditorium and also feeds newer distribution in the twin pad addition. The 600V is transformed to 120/208V through-out the building with local panelboards to serve power and lighting loads. There is a 400kvU-600V Generac outdoor standby diesel generator and 30kvU-240V indoor emergency generator onsite. There are five elevating devices within the building, including three passenger elevators, one freight elevator and one small lift in the south end restaurant. The Centennial Stadium grandstand structure consists of precast concrete double T-sections with aluminum seats supported on large sloped reinforced concrete beams and secured by welded steel plate connections. The water management strategy for the structure relies on the precast concrete sections and sealant joints to prevent water infiltration to the rooms below. No additional waterproofing measures have been provided. The site elements include public footpaths, steps, handrails, ramps and parking lots and roadways. These components were not reviewed as part of this report. For the purposes of this report, the Twin Pads are to the north of the Dom Cardillo Arena. IRC 10776-LB10-103CR 2 7 - 27 ' Building Condition Assessment- Executive Summary ., . Kitchener Memorial Auditorium Complex - 400 East Avenue, Kitchener, Ontario 2.1 General IRC met on-site with Mr. Jeff Coulter, Supervisor of Event Operations, to discuss the building and any known issues that exist. A review of the building components was completed from both ground and roof top level access where possible. Photographs taken during the course of the investigations are presented in the relevant report sections in the appendices. Building components were reviewed to determine their general condition and anticipated replacement I repair schedule over the next 20 year period. For the purposes of this report, repair, retrofit and replacement costs valued at $5,000 or less have been considered operational 1 maintenance expenditures and although they may have been identified in the reports, have not been included in the budgets. 2.2 Code Compliance This assessment does not include a review of components for compliance with applicable codes and / or regulations unless otherwise stated. Although some code related issues may be identified in the various reports, only the specific items identified as such have been reviewed in this manner. It should be noted that other unidentified code compliance related deficiencies may exist. 2.3 Project Team IRC Building Sciences London Group Inc. 4026 Meadowbrook Drive, Suite 131 London, Ontario N6L 1 G7 Contact: Steve Krysa, P.Eng -Project Manager Tel: 519.652.5985 IRC Building Sciences London Group Inc. was responsible for review of the interior and exterior building components as well as the coordination and production of the report. Callidus Engineering 1385 North Routledge Park, Unit 9 London, Ontario N6H 5N5 Contact: Grant Hall, P.Eng -President Tel: 519.472-7640 Callidus Engineering was responsible for review of the mechanical, electrical, plumbing and fire & life safety components. Takamaki Consultants Inc. 3022 Runcorn Row Mississauga, Ontario N6H 5N5 Tel: 905.824.5006 Contact: Ron Takamaki -Principal Takamaki Consultants Inc. was responsible for review of the elevators, lifts and related components. IRC 10776-LB10-103CR 3 7 - 28 ' Building Condition Assessment- Executive Summary ., . Kitchener Memorial Auditorium Complex - 400 East Avenue, Kitchener, Ontario 2.4 Documentation provided to IRC Further to the information attained on site by the consultants outlined above, the City of Kitchener provided the following additional documentation for use and / or inclusion within this report. Construction Drawings Drawing No. Designer I Date 1-15, Horton and Ball Architects August 1966 G305 - P305 ~ A1- A22, Paul M. Skinner Architect February 1986 S1- S7 S1- S6, Lloyd Robertson Engineering Ltd. February 1986 R-1- R-7, M-1- M-10, E-1- E-6 A1- A15 D.J. Pinchin Technical Consultants 1-11 Dejmek Associates Inc. P1, P2, M1, E1 Schiedel Construction Inc. SP-1, SP-2 C & H Fire Suppression Systems Inc. Al-A2 Courtland Engineering Consultants S1 Totten, Sims, Hubicki Associates Al-1- A8-3, Brisbon, Brook, Beynon architects S1-S10, M1-1- M6-1, E1-1- E7-1, K-01- K-20 D-1, L-1 A - L-4B AO - A8 Can-Am Design Group Inc. ME1 Demaiter Engineering Inc. M1- M4 Enermodal Engineering Ltd. 001- 002 Athletica August 1986 September 1997 October 1997 October 1997 May 2000 June 2000 February -December 2001 September 2001 September 2001 January 2004 March 2007 November 2007 IRC 10776-LB10-103CR PMA Landscape Architects 4 7-29 ' Building Condition Assessment- Executive Summary ., . Kitchener Memorial Auditorium Complex - 400 East Avenue, Kitchener, Ontario Reports 1. Roof Condition Assessment prepared by IRC Building Sciences Group Inc. dated November 27, 2009. 2. Centennial Stadium Grandstand prepared by MTE Consultants Inc. dated August 13, 2008. 3. City of Kitchener Accessibility Audit Project prepared by The Herrington Group Ltd. dated August 13, 2007 4. 1997 Asbestos Reassessments of City of Kitchener Buildings prepared by Couch and Associates Consultants Inc. dated July 1997. 5. City of Kitchener Reassessment of the Condition of Asbestos Containing Materials at Selected Facilities prepared by Industrial Hygiene and Environmental Advisory Services Inc. dated September 2004. 6. Study and Analysis of the Electrical Distribution System for Kitchener Memorial Auditorium Complex prepared by Stecho Electric dated January 15, 1997. Aspects of this report are also based on verbal information provided by representatives of both the City of Kitchener and the Kitchener Memorial Auditorium Complex. Although efforts have been made to verify information provided, IRC cannot guarantee the accuracy of third party information received. IRC 10776-LB10-103CR 5 7-30 ' Building Condition Assessment- Executive Summary ., . Kitchener Memorial Auditorium Complex - 400 East Avenue, Kitchener, Ontario THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK IRC 10776-LB10-103CR 6 7-31 ' Building Condition Assessment- Executive Summary ., . Kitchener Memorial Auditorium Complex - 400 East Avenue, Kitchener, Ontario 3.1 General The Kitchener Memorial Auditorium Complex is a multi-use facility that includes a main arena (Dom Cardillo Arena), two smaller arenas (Kinsmen and Kiwanis Arenas), a baseball park (Jack Couch Stadium), a track and field 1 soccer 1 football field (Centennial Stadium) and a skate park. The original arena opened in 1951 and the facility has been expanded several times since its initial construction, including the construction of Centennial Stadium and Jack Couch Park in 1967, the Twin Pad addition in 1987 and the Kitchener Rangers Hockey Club addition in 1998. Many construction projects were completed over the years with the last major renovation occurring circa 2003 in the Dom Cardillo Arena that included the construction of media gondolas, corporate suites, additional seating, restaurant and dressing room upgrades and the displacement of the concessions beyond the exterior walls. As the Dom Cardillo Arena underwent extensive renovations in 2003 and the Twin Pads Arena and Administration Corridor addition was constructed in 1987, most of the building components were noted to be in fair to good condition at this time. A summary of the building components and major concerns has been outlined below. For specific observations and comments refer to the appropriate report sections in the appendices. 3.2 Interior Components (Appendix A~ A review of the interior building components was completed by IRC Building Sciences Group Inc. on December 21 and January 4 and 12, 2011 with observations and recommendations summarized in a report entitled Buildin Condition Assessment -Facility Inferior Components dated January 31, 2011. Dom Cardillo Arena The rubber skate the flooring installed throughout the dressing rooms and rink access corridors in the Dom Cardillo Arena date from several different installation periods with all areas showing heavy wear. The typical service life of skate the is generally 10 years due to the abrasive nature of the foot traffic and replacement will be anticipated within the next 5 -10 years. The dressing rooms are also provided with washroom areas which have had their sinks and vanities upgraded in recent years. More extensive renovations to these areas would not be anticipated for another 10 - 20 years. There are three large concession areas on the east, west and south ends of the Dom Cardillo Arena as well as a loungelbar area on both the concourse and suite levels. The east and west concessions were constructed as additions in 2003 and the south concession was converted from a ticket counter at this same time. All interior finishes and appliances in these concessions are currently in good condition; however, these are considered to be heavy use areas with shortened life expectancies and complete refurbishment may be expected in 10 -15 years. The same applies to the finishes and appliances in the bar and kitchen areas of the lounges; however, the lounge areas themselves (large seating areas with the /terrazzo flooring) should not need replacing within the 20 year study period. The fourteen washrooms within the Dom Cardillo Arena are all considered to be in good to fair condition with many upgrades completed in 2003 which typically included new vanities and sinks, soap dispensers and new toiletlurinal stall partitions. The suite level washrooms have been constructed new as additions in 2003. The washrooms (specifically on the concourse level) are extensively used due to the large occupancy events and as such, the components typically have a shorter service life. It can be anticipated that major restorations to all washrooms will be required in 10 -15 years. There are twenty-six private suites situated on the suite and concourse levels of the Dom Cardillo Arena. All suite level suites were constructed in 2003 as part of the major renovations to the facility and the concourse level suite was constructed in 2008. All suites are currently in good condition and appear to be well maintained by users and staff. Major renovations are not anticipated for another 10 - 15 years which would include replacement of all millwork and cabinetry, plumbing fixtures, carpeting and all interior finishes. The corridors and general assembly areas throughout the facility have been provided with painted interior walls. IRC were informed interior painting of the entire facility is forecasted to be completed circa 2019. No significant damages to the interior walls was noted that would require painting prior to this time. IRC 10776 LB10 103CR 7 7-32 ' Building Condition Assessment- Executive Summary ., . Kitchener Memorial Auditorium Complex - 400 East Avenue, Kitchener, Ontario Several offices are situated on the event level of the Dom Cardillo Arena; however, many appear to be vacant or used as storage rooms. The larger office space occupied by The Compass Group is showing signs of aging with worn carpeting, damaged ceilings and deterioration of millwork. Complete refurbishment of this office may be considered within the next 2 - 5 years. The media area and press boxes along the east side of the suite level were construction along with an additional 400 seats circa 2008. All areas are currently in good condition. Replacement of the carpeting and millwork may be anticipated near the end of the 20 year study period from general wear that comes with age. All the arena seating for the Dom Cardillo Arena were replaced in 1989 and should last in excess of the 20 year study period with normal use. The pad cushions were replaced in 2007 and typically have a service life of 10 -15 years. IRC were informed that the facility has seat recovering scheduled for approximately 2018. The perimeter rink board and underlying floor were replaced for the Dom Cardillo Arena in 1995 with the plexiglass sections at the rink ends replaced in 2008. The typical service life of these components is relatively short due to the nature of the usage and the physical damage sustained during set-up and take down for the various events that occur at the facility. It may be expected that replacement of these components is required in 8 -12 years. Protective mesh netting has been installed at the north and south ends of the rink and are operated by a pulley system attached to the building structure. This netting was replaced in 2003 and has a typical service life of between 8 -10 years. Replacement is anticipated within the next 2 - 5 years. Arena lights, signage and various other electrical equipment and conduits have been secured to the guard system of the elevated catwalk around the perimeter of the building. It is unlikely the original walkway design took into account this additional loading and consideration should be given to the completion of a structural review in the near future to determine if the current configuration is adequate designed for this usage. Deficiencies with regards to trip hazards and safety concerns were also noted on this catwalk which should be addressed immediately. Twin Pads Arena & Administration Corridor The rubber skate the installed in all dressing rooms and adjoining corridors of the Twin Pads arena is currently in fair to poor condition with heavy wearing noted throughout. This is the third replacement cycle of this flooring with the latest installation date of 2002. Complete replacement of the skate the is recommended at the same time as the Dom Cardillo skate the replacement in the next 2 - 5 years. Other dressing room refurbishments which can be expected in the next 10 - 20 years include replacement of all benches and millwork as well as complete replacement of the perimeter coat hooks. Consideration may be given to installing safety release hooks or ones with rounded edges to reduce the risk of possible injuries and limit liabilities for the facility. The floor covering for the main and upper floor lobbies as well as the main floor central staircase in the Administration Corridor is rubber square grip the flooring which appears to be original to the building construction of 1987. The flooring is generally in fair to poor condition with areas of heavy wear and a dated decor. IRC were informed that the replacement is anticipated in 2016 which will include the main and upper lobbies, entrance vestibules and exit stairwells. Concrete scaling and cracking was noted on the flooring of the maintenance room where the ice resurfacer is stored and along the paths it takes to the rinks caused by excessive water saturation in these areas. Concrete repairs to this flooring may be expected within the next 10 -15 years. Office spaces are located on the main floor of the Administration Corridor. Most offices generally consist of carpet andlor vinyl the flooring, millwork and cabinetry, painted interior finishes and lay-in ceiling tiles. The carpets appear to have been replaced at some point and all other interior finishes currently appear to be in fair condition. Complete refurbishment of the offices should be anticipated within the next 5 -10 years. All the concessions throughout the Twin Pads and Administration Corridor appear to date from the original building construction of 1987 and showing signs of wear and age. An overall refurbishment of the cabinetry and equipment in all concessions should be considered within the next 0 - 2 years. Larger kitchens located on the lower level of the Kiwanis arena and the upper level of the Administration Corridor are in slightly better condition than the concessions as they appear to be less frequently used. Complete refurbishment of these kitchens may be considered within the next 5 -10 years but may be extended if not used regularly. The ten washrooms located in the Twin Pads and Administration Corridor appear to be original to the building construction of 1987 with upgrades completed to the vanities and wash basins. The washrooms are considered to be relatively low maintenance, with hard durable surfaces which appear currently appear to be in good to fair IRC 10776-LB10-103CR 8 7-33 ' Building Condition Assessment- Executive Summary ., . Kitchener Memorial Auditorium Complex - 400 East Avenue, Kitchener, Ontario condition. Major restoration would not be anticipated for another 10 -15 years with continued maintenance. This would include replacement of all plumbing fixtures and piping, new vanities and toilet stalls, and replacement of all interior finishes. There are a number of ancillary rooms situated throughout the Twin Pads and Administration Corridor. The Heated Viewing, First Aid and Multi-Purpose rooms are currently considered to be in good to fair condition with general wearing on the vinyl flooring and damaged ceiling tiles. Renovations to these rooms may be expected within the next 5 -10 years. The Fitness Area at the lower level of the Twin Pads has interlocking rubber mats which are in good condition and are not anticipated to be replaced until the later end of the 20 year study period. It was noted that several of the fire safety doors were wedged open during general use of the facility. This appears to be a code violation which may have significant safety concerns in the case of an emergency. It is recommended to install doors which feature electromagnetic door holders which are connected to the fire alarm system and automatically release the door in the event of a fire. The steel guardrails around the perimeter of the seating in the Kinsmen arena appear to be climbable and have large openings between the vertical and horizontal members. The height difference between the two levels is in excess of 12' and the spaces between the railings appear to be greater than current code requirements. It is recommended that the guardrails around the two side areas be replaced with a guardrail that meets current code requirements. The perimeter rink boards and glass for both Kinsmen and Kiwanis Arenas were replaced in 2007 and 2008 respectively. The typical service life of these components is relatively short and continued maintenance and replacement of individual glass panels is to be expected as an operating expenditure. With continued use, complete board replacement for both the Kinsmen and Kiwanis Arenas may be anticipated in the next 10 - 15 years. 3.3 Exterior Components (Appendix B) A review of the exterior building envelope components was completed by IRC Building Sciences Group Inc. on January 4 and 12, 2011 with observations and recommendations summarized in a report entitled Buildin Condition Assessment -Building Envelope Components dated January 31, 2011. Architectural Block Masonry Architectural block masonry has been installed on the north, east and west elevations of the Twin Pads Arena (north end of the facility) and on the east and a portion of the north and west elevations of the Dom Cardillo Arena (south end of the facility). The architectural block masonry at the Twin Pads Arena and Dom Cardillo Arena were installed circa 1987 and 2003 respectively. The typical service life of architectural block masonry is equal to the life of the property, i.e., 80 + years. Localized mortar joint deterioration was observed at one area near the parapet at the north end of the east elevation. It appears the deterioration is the result of excess moisture absorption caused by a failed parapet flashing above, but this cannot be confirmed without completing additional investigation. It is recommended that all deteriorated mortar joints be repointed in the near future to prevent further deterioration and the area above be reviewed to determine the source of the water. Exterior Insulation Finish System (EIFS) EIFS has been installed at the upper levels of the Dom Cardillo Arena on the east, west and a portion of the south elevations. All EIFS cladding was installed as part of the large renovation project completed in 2003. The cladding appears to be installed to a good standard and therefore should have a service life of approximately 20 to 30 years. Numerous patch repairs and existing damage was observed at the north end of the west elevation where the EIFS cladding has been extended to grade. This wall is in close proximity to a shipping and receiving area which increases its susceptibility to impact damages. It is recommended that all damaged areas be repaired to prevent water infiltration behind the cladding and the de-bonding of the finish coat. Consideration could also be given to the installation of bollards along the base of the wall to protect against future impact or the replacement of the EIFS cladding in this area with a more durable material such as masonry. IRC 10776-LB10-103CR 9 7-34 ' Building Condition Assessment- Executive Summary ., . Kitchener Memorial Auditorium Complex - 400 East Avenue, Kitchener, Ontario Stone Masonry Stone masonry has been installed on the south and a portion of the east and west elevations of the Dom Cardillo Arena. It appears the stone may date from the original building construction circa 1951. spalling was observed in several areas which appear to be the result of corroded anchors embedded within the stone sections. As steel corrodes, its volume increases resulting in a build-up of internal stresses and the eventual cracking and spalling of the stone. Also, deteriorated mortar joints and scalling of the stone was observed. It is recommended that Dutchmen type stone repairs be completed at all affected areas of the stonework as well as mortar joint repairs within the next 0 - 2 years. Cast-in-Place Concrete A cast-in place concrete wall has been provided along the lower west elevation of the Dom Cardillo Arena. In general, concrete walls should last the life of the building with localized repairs being completed as required. Some shrinkage 1 settlement cracking was observed at the corners of the exterior doors and exhaust louvers as well as surface spalling from insufficient concrete cover over the reinforcing steel. The amount of damage to the concrete noted was considered minor for the age of the facility; however, it is recommended to repair these areas to restrict water penetration into the interior and prevent further corrosion of the embedded reinforcing steel. Metal Cladding Corrugated metal siding has been provided at the top floor level of the Dom Cardillo Arena. Sections of metal siding have also been provided above the window system for the west entrance of the Twin Pads Arena. The typical service life of commercial grade metal siding is 30+ years. Replacement of either area of metal siding should not be anticipated within the 20 year period of this study. Concrete Landing A large concrete landing has been provided at the north end of the west elevation of the Dom Cardillo Arena. The waterproofing membrane provided was noted to be in extremely poor condition with extensive delamination and sections missing. Water staining was observed at cracks in the soffit indicating a presence of through slab water penetration. Although no corrosion staining was noted at this time, continued through slab water penetration could eventually lead to the deterioration of the steel reinforcing and concrete. It is recommended that the waterproofing system be replaced within the next 0 - 2 years. Soffits and Fascia Prefinished metal soffits and fascias have been installed at the entrance canopies on the south, east and west elevations of the Dom Cardillo Arena and the east elevation of the Twin Pads Arena. The soffit area at the Twin Pads is insulated (underside of the heated vestibule glazing) yet large gaps were noted between the metal sections exposing the fibreglass insulation above. These gaps could lead to excessive air infiltration resulting in a significant loss of thermal resistance. Further investigation would be required to confirm the construction of the canopy, but if extensive air leakage is an issue, consideration should be given to the replacement of the soffit within the next 0 - 2 years. Doors and Related The six anodized aluminum curtain wall door entrance assemblies are considered to be in good condition. The typical service life of an entrance door system is between 30 - 50 years and as such replacement is not anticipated within the 20 year study period; however, IRC were informed that the facility is currently in the process of renovating the entrance door systems for the Twin Pads arena to improve access for those with disabilities. Unforeseeable expenditures such as accessibility upgrades cannot be accurately predicted and have not been provided with budgetary costs in this study. Insulated steel service doors have been provided at various locations around the perimeter of the building with most being designated exit only as they do not open from the exterior. The typical service life of metal exterior doors is 30 - 40 years, but can be highly variable depending on use and maintenance. Some of the older exterior doors may require replacement near the end of the 20 year study period. IRC 10776-LB10-103CR 10 7-35 ' Building Condition Assessment- Executive Summary ., . Kitchener Memorial Auditorium Complex - 400 East Avenue, Kitchener, Ontario There are a number of prefinished insulated overhead doors located around the perimeter of the facility that vary in both size and age. These doors typically have a service life of 15 - 30 years depending on the usage and impact damages. Consideration could be given to their replacement near the end of the 20 year study period. Windows and Related Most of the windows at this facility are located within the Dom Cardillo Arena and generally consist of aluminum framing with fixed insulated glass units (IGUs). The windows on the east and west elevations appear to have been installed with the 1998 and 2003 constructions while the windows on the south elevation have been installed in 1982. Interior water penetration was noted on the south elevation windows which could be the result of failed perimeter sealants andlor the adjacent spalled stone. The typical service life of aluminum windows is 25 - 35 years, and as such, replacement of the older windows may be expected within the next 2 - 5 years. There is a large sloped skylight on the east elevation of the Twin Pads Arena which appears to be original to the building construction circa 1987. Interior drywall and paint damage was noted in several areas that appear to be the result of skylight leaks. Further investigation and water testing would be required to determine the specific source of the water penetration and repair scope. Sealants Complete perimeter sealant replacement is recommended for all windows throughout the Kitchener Memorial Auditorium Complex as well as all perimeter sealant around the south entrance doors. As the original windows on the south elevation are nearing the end of their service lives, it is expected that the replacement of the perimeter sealants will be included with these new installations; however, if window replacement is to be delayed, the replacement of the sealants should still be considered to address the interior water penetration issues at these locations. The expansion joint sealant for the architectural block masonry at the Twin Pads Arena has generally failed and the expansion joints at the Dom Cardillo Arena are filled with mortar. It is recommended that the mortar in the Dom Cardillo Arena joints and the failed sealants at the Twin Pads Arena be removed and new sealant be installed within the next 0 - 2 years. 3.4 Roofing Components (Appendix C) A review of the roofing assemblies was completed by IRC Building Sciences Group Inc. on November 6 and 12, 2009 with observations and recommendations summarized in a report entitled Roof Condition Assessment dated November 27, 2009. The roof is subdivided into 22 roof areas (R-1 to R-22) and consists of a Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC) membrane system in all areas with the exception of R-13 and R-14 which consisted of built-up roofing (BUR) and 2-ply modified bitumen roofing systems respectively. In general, the roofing assemblies were noted to be in good to fair condition with only two roof areas (R9 and R22) reported as being in poor condition with replacement recommended in 2011. The remainder of the roofs have an anticipated remaining service life of at least 5 years. Several maintenance items such as membrane metal flashing repairs, replacement of missing l damaged drain screens and the removal of debris were recommended at the several of the roof areas; however, these items have been considered operational / maintenance expenditures and therefore have not been included in the table of expenditures. 3.5 Mechanical 1 Electrical 1 Life Safety Components (Appendix D) A review of the mechanical, electrical and life safety components was completed by Callidus Engineering on December 21 and January 4 and 12, 2011 with observations and recommendations summarized in a report entitled Building Condition Assessment -Mechanical, Electrical & Life Safefy Systems (Callidus En.. ineerinq~ dated January 31, 2011. Dom Cardillo Arena Most of the mechanical equipment servicing the Dom Cardillo Arena was replaced circa 2001 and is in good condition. The current dehumidification system in the arena was reported to be inadequate, and does not provide sufficient dehumidification -this may result in poor ice conditions and potential mould growth in the building. The IRC 10776-LB10-103CR 11 7-36 ' Building Condition Assessment- Executive Summary ., . Kitchener Memorial Auditorium Complex - 400 East Avenue, Kitchener, Ontario current dehumidification system has surpassed its typical service life and replacement may be expected in the near future. There are two steam boilers that provide heating to the building, although only one need operate to provide heating as supplementary heating is from the rooftop units. Both boilers have been refurbished at some time in their history, and it is expected that further refurbishment may be expected in the next 20 years. Consideration may be given to changing to high efficiency condensing boilers at the time of failure or refurbishment. The refrigeration system in the floor of the Auditorium was replaced in approximately 1990. The piping to the floor is not visible for inspection, but no issues were reported by maintenance staff. The piping between the ammonia and brine system in the mechanical room that are visible appeared to be in good condition. With regular maintenance the refrigeration system can last between 25-30 years; the chiller and condenser are relatively new, but the compressors should be scheduled for replacement in the near future. Domestic hot water is provided through a natural gas fired water heater with secondary storage tank. The water heater was installed in 2008 and is in excellent condition. The water softeners were installed in 1998 and appear to be in good working condition. The hot water for the Zamboni is provided by a high efficiency condensing water heater with heat exchanger and supplemental storage tanks. All equipment appears to be in good condition. The Dom Cardillo Arena still utilizes some distribution equipment that is from the original 1950 construction. This includes two distribution sections identified as "unit sub-stations". These house 600V panels, transformers and 1201208V panel sections and are located in the main electrical room. There are also panelboards and wireways in this room, and throughout the lower levels of the Auditorium that are original to the building. This equipment is obsolete and in poor condition. It is well past its expected useful life and should be replaced. There is no emergency lighting or exit signs on the catwalk level. As this is an accessible workplace and used by staff during shows and events -exit signs and emergency lighting should be supplied in this area. Fire alarm devices in the Dom Cardillo Arena appear to be original to the building in most cases and should be replaced along with wiring serving the devices. Coverage should also be reviewed and supplemented as per current codes and standards. The layout of signal devices appears to be inadequate. An audibility study should be performed and additional signal devices provided where audibility is not sufficient. Consideration of the types of use of the facility needs to be reviewed for detector coverage and audiblelvisual signal coverage. Wiring at the catwalk level should be reviewed as there are many loosely run communications wires and surface conduits that impeded movement or create a personnel hazard on or around the catwalk. There are electrical panels which do not have 1 meter of clear working area in-front of them. These should all be addressed immediately. Much of the interior lighting fixtures in The Dom Cardillo Arena are of older technology, considered to be of poor energy efficiency, some are of uncommon lamp size, and upgrades may be expected in the near future. Twin Pads Arena & Administration Corridor The majority of the heating, ventilation and air-conditioning (HVAC) for the Twin Pad Arenas is provided through a heat pump system with boilers and chiller to provide heating and cooling respectively. There are 19 heat pumps located in the twin pad areas. Only four of the heat pumps have been replaced since installed during the building construction. Previously used dehumidification units were added to the twin pads in 2009. The four additional units supplemented the existing two dehumidifiers installed during the building construction. The units are in working condition, but hum rather loudly in the space. The current units are passed their expected life and should be replaced in the near future. It is recommended that the dehumidification system is thoroughly analyzed and units are properly selected to meet the dehumidification requirement forthe space. The Twin Pad Arenas building heating system is designed with hot water heating. The boilers were replaced in 2000 and are in good condition. The cooling system is design to operate with chilled water. There is a cooling tower in the Lower Pad Mechanical room and chiller located in the Upper Mechanical room. The cooling tower was replaced in 2006, while the chiller is original to the building construction. The system appears to be in good working condition. The system is anticipated to remain operational with proper maintenance for a few more years. The refrigeration system in the Twin Pad Arena floor of the ice pads is original to the building construction. Piping between the ammonia and brine system in the mechanical room that was visible appeared to be in poor condition. Significant corrosion is visible. The environment in this mechanical room appears to be speeding up the IRC 10776-LB10-103CR 12 7-37 ' Building Condition Assessment- Executive Summary ., . Kitchener Memorial Auditorium Complex - 400 East Avenue, Kitchener, Ontario deterioration process. The condenser is relatively new, installed in 2004, but the compressors are original to the building construction and replacement may be expected in the near future. The domestic hot water and Zamboni hot water is provided from the building heating system by means of a heat exchanger and supplemental storage tank. Both heat exchangers were installed in 2000 and are in good condition, while the tanks were installed at building construction and are in need of upgrading or replacement. The Twin Pad Arena section of the building utilizes electrical distribution equipment that was installed in 1986. The equipment is in fair condition and is expected to perform well for the next 10-15 years. Much of the interior lighting fixtures in the Twin Pad Arena are either of older technology, considered to be of poor energy efficiency, not the ideal fixture for the application or generally in poor condition; upgrades may be expected in the near future. 3.6 Elevating Devices (Appendix E) A review of the elevating devices was completed by Takamaki Consultants Inc. on January 14, 2011 with observations and recommendations summarized in a letter to IRC dated January 19, 2011. The building has five elevating devices, including three passenger elevators, one freight elevator and one small lift in the south end restaurant. The following was noted during the review: The main passenger elevator (installation #39939) was installed circa 1986, serves three levels and appears to be the most heavily used within the complex. Electronic door protection was installed in 2006 which appear to be the only upgrades made to the original installation. Minor damages were reported within the cab and the door operation and approach to landings was noted to be poor. It was recommended that as funding becomes available, the door operator and associated hardware (interlocks, pick-up roller assemblies, door rollers, gibs, etc.), power unit, control system, fixtures and wiring be replaced and the completion of cosmetic upgrades be completed to the interior cab. It was also recommended that the replacement of the underground hydraulic cylinders be included with this project. The second passenger elevator (installation #35721) was installed circa 1982, serves three levels and has two front and rear entrances. Although the elevator was reported to be in good condition, it was recommended that modernization be considered within the next 5 years. Included with this work would be the replacement of the two door operators and associated hardware (interlocks, pick-up roller assemblies, door rollers, gibs, etc.), power unit, control system, fixtures and wiring and the completion of cosmetic upgrades to the interior cab. It was also recommended that the replacement of the underground hydraulic cylinders be included with this project. The auditorium passenger elevator (installation #78879) was installed circa 2002, serves two levels and appears to have low use. This elevator was reported to be in excellent condition with only valve replacement anticipated within the next 10 years. By the end of the 20 year study period it was recommended that modernization be considered that includes the replacement of the door operators and associated hardware (interlocks, pick-up roller assemblies, door rollers, gibs, etc.), power unit, control system, fixtures and wiring and the completion of cosmetic upgrades to the interior cab. The freight elevator (installation #80520) was installed circa 2003, serves three levels and has dual swing type doors. This elevator was reported to be in good condition with only the replacement of the power unit and control system anticipated within the next 15 years. It was also recommended that the machine door be made self closing and self locking. The dining room lift (installation #79430) was reported to be a Vertical Platform Lift Type C which is designed to carry one person in a wheelchair. The unit is self supporting and has a rise of approximately 48". On-site personnel indicated the unit is quite problematic and it was reported that and that the car platform appeared to be distorted, suggesting it may have been used for other purposes. It was recommended that consideration be given to whether the lift is actually required; if it is, then replacement with a more robust design would be required. 3.7 Score Clock Hoist (Appendix F) The Dom Cardillo Arena score clock cable hoist equipment was reviewed and certified by Acutec Inspection & Services Ltd. on November 17, 2010. All aspects of the 5 ton double drum cable hoist were noted to be in satisfactory condition, with the exception of the pandand cable connection which does not properly fit the hoist panel. Acutec recommended that the cable connection be replaced at hoist panel. No cost estimate was provided in the report. IRC 10776-LB10-103CR 13 7-38 ' Building Condition Assessment- Executive Summary ., . Kitchener Memorial Auditorium Complex - 400 East Avenue, Kitchener, Ontario 3.8 Accessibility Audit Appendix G) A review of the Kitchener Memorial Auditorium was completed by The Herrington Group Ltd. as part of a larger project that included the review of 53 City of Kitchener buildings and facilities to ensure compliance with the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act using the K-W Barrier Free Design Standards (DS-A-5.1) and the Region of Waterloo Accessibility Checklist. Observations and recommendations were summarized in a report entitled Cify of Kitchener Accessibility Audit Proiecf dated August 13, 2007. It was noted in the report that since the adoption of the Ontario Building Code 2006, the Region's Design Standards and Audit Checklist are now considered out of date and it was recommended that the Grand River Accessibility Advisory Committee update these tools to reflect changes made in the new building code. The results of the assessment have been summarized in chart form within the appendix using priority rankings ranging from 1 to 4 as follows: Priority 1-Changes recommended are simple and maintenance related and can be made within the confines of regularly scheduled operations. Action is recommended within 6 to 12 months. Priority 2 -Changes recommended are urgent and need immediate consideration and action. Action is recommended within 1 to 2 years. Failure to make these changes puts the Township at immediate risk of creating or maintaining barriers and hazards to public safety for people with disabilities or creates immediate risk of a legitimate complaint under the Ontario Human Rights Code. Priority 3 -Changes recommended are not urgent but will assist in more effectively meeting the access needs of people with disabilities. Failure to address these recommendations may result in these issues escalating into Priority 2. Implementing the recommendations may result in lower incidents of complaints and increased service levels. Priority 4 -Changes recommended are suggestions for consideration in future planning and / or capital projects as resources become available. Although these recommendations are still priorities, this ranking recognizes the need for long term planning and resource allocation. They may also relate to items to be implemented on an "as needed" basis to accommodate staff with disabilities. These recommendations may also serve as ways to prevent barriers in the future. According to the report the Kitchener Memorial Auditorium has 121 items listed as Priority 1, 24 items listed as Priority 2, 16 items listed as Priority 3, 2 items listed as Priority 4, and 2 items listed as Priority 113. It should be noted that many of these concerns are directly related to the age of the building and the code requirements at the time it was constructed. At the time of IRC's review, several projects were on-going or had already been completed to resolve a few of the concerns outlined in the 2007 report, including the removal of the center mullion between the doors and the installation of barrier free access push buttons at the Twin Pads heated viewing area, the installation of sliding doors at the main entrance on the east elevation and various washroom upgrades. No cost estimates were provided for these or other recommended repairs outlined in the report, however, some of these items have been addressed in IRC's interior components assessment report section. 3.9 Asbestos Containing Materials Assessment (Appendix H~ In 1995, Couch & Associates Inc. reviewed the Kitchener Memorial Auditorium and Centennial Stadium to evaluate the condition of asbestos-containing materials (ACM's) within the buildings. This was completed as part of a larger project that included the review of 54 City of Kitchener buildings. In the spring of 1997, Couch & Associates reassessed the buildings and prepared an updated report entitled 1997 Asbestos Reassessment of Cify of Kichener Buildings dated July 1997 which provided an updated condition of all ACM's identified in the 1995 assessment as well as reported any not previously identified. It also provided information regarding those that had been removed or altered since the last inspection. In September 2004, Industrial Hygiene and Environmental Advisory Services Inc. completed an additional reassessment, but did not include a review of the Centennial Stadium. Observations and recommendations were summarized in a report entitled Cify of Kichener Reassessment of the Condition of Asbestos Confaining Materials of Selected Facilities dated September, 2004. As the 1997 assessment of the Dom Cardillo and Twin Pad Arenas was superseded by the 2004 review, all comments have been based on the 2004 report only. As a review of the Centennial Stadium was not included in this assessment, observation and recommendations regarding this facility have been based on the 1997 report. IRC 10776-LB10-103CR 14 7-39 ' Building Condition Assessment- Executive Summary ., . Kitchener Memorial Auditorium Complex - 400 East Avenue, Kitchener, Ontario 1997 Report -Couch & Associates Inc. (Centennial Stadium) The 1997 review reported that the Centennial Stadium grandstand contains very limited insulation, most of the ceiling tiles were replaced in 1992 and the ACM's at the boilers and associated pipes and fittings, which contained amosite asbestos and chrysotile asbestos, were removed in 1995. The tan floor the in the concession area was found to contain 2% chrysotile asbestos, but was noted to be generally in fair to good condition. The ACM's in the floor are in anon-friable matrix and present no hazard in their non-friable form. As well, the low percentage of asbestos in the certainly limits exposure significantly. The perforated asbestos hardboard that was installed above the ceiling the in the referees room, washrooms, custodial room, concession, adjacent to concession and office hallway is a hardboard "transite" ACM. Section 8 of the press box shows asbestos hardboard on wood sheathing and the buried electrical conduit to the scoreboard is asbestos-containing transite pipe. The review endeavoured to locate all hardboard asbestos, but much can be hidden or imbedded within wall or roof structures. In these instances the material continues to provide flame retardant properties that only add to the safety of the building occupants. This material, if kept in good condition, can last for decades and presents no hazard to the occupants. It was recommended that if broken floor tile, hardboard or other non-friable asbestos products be encountered, they should be handled as Type 1 and disposed of appropriately. There is little to no hazard in this situation as long as the product is not crushed or pulverized. If however, there are plans for extensive removal, Type 2 and possibly 3 abatement restriction should be considered. It was also recommended that annual reassessments be completed to monitor the condition of the known asbestos-containing materials, if they are not removed. As per information provided to IRC, the last review was completed 14 years ago. Annual reassessment costs have been considered operational /maintenance expenditures and therefore have not been included in the table of expenditures. 2004 Report - iheas Inc. (Dom Cardillo and Twin Pad Arenas) The 2004 review reported that since 1986, there had been an extensive removal of all known ACM in the Kitchener Memorial Auditorium facility and it is now believed to be ACM-free. The investigation noted no friable or damaged insulation or any with ACM characteristics other than that used at the breeching off of two boilers, where upon testing, proved to be 5-25% ceramic wool with no asbestos content detected. 3.10 Centennial Stadium Grandstand (Appendix I) A structural review of the Centennial Stadium Grandstand was completed by MTE Consultants Inc. on December 13, 2007 and July 16, 2008 with observations and recommendations summarized in a report entitled Centennial Stadium Grandstand dated August 13, 2008. The structure was reassessed by IRC Building Sciences Group Inc. on January 12, 2011 with observations and recommendations summarized in a report entitled Centennial Stadium Grandstand Structural Assessment dated January 17, 2011. The Centennial Stadium grandstand was constructed to the north of the Kitchener Memorial Auditorium circa 1967 and consists of precast concrete double T-sections supported by reinforced concrete beams, columns and foundations. The structure has a seating capacity of 3,200 and a footprint of approximately 15,000 sq ft. Concessions, change rooms, washrooms, and electrical and storage rooms have been provided below the seating area. A summaryof the report findings has been provided below. 2008 Report -MTE Consultants Inc. The 2008 review reported spalled concrete and corroded reinforcing steel was observed at the underside of the grandstand and the extent of the deterioration had increased between the December 2007 and July 2008 site visits. Only two beams and one section of precast stairs were reviewed by MTE as the majority of the grandstand was inaccessible by the Fire Department ladder truck used in the investigation. It was recommended that all spalled /deteriorated concrete be removed from the underside of the grandstand to minimize the potential of it falling and that repairs be performed consisting of the cleaning and coating of exposed reinforcing steel and the completion of concrete patch repairs. It was also recommended that the grandstand be reviewed and repaired on a regular basis to extend the service life of the structure. No cost estimate for repairs was provided in the report. IRC 10776-LB10-103CR 15 7-40 ' Building Condition Assessment- Executive Summary ., . Kitchener Memorial Auditorium Complex - 400 East Avenue, Kitchener, Ontario 2011 Report -IRC Building Sciences Group Inc. The 2008 review reported that the grandstand is considered to be in a deteriorated state and given the condition of some of the steel connections, could be considered unsafe; specifically if it were loaded to capacity. At the time of the report, most of the connections had only sustained surface corrosion; however, some were noted to be in critical condition with nearly full section loss. As the precast sections are supported on a sloped beam, these steel components are crucial to maintain the integrity of the structure. Although some cracking and spalling was noted at a few of the precast and reinforced concrete sections, the level of deterioration was considered relatively minor and does not pose an immediate structural concern at this time. The main issue with the spalling concrete in this instance, is the potential safety risk with it falling to the public below. In general, the sealant joints provided between the precast sections were noted to be in poor condition and failed throughout. The failure of these joints and the resultant water penetration is the principal cause of the deterioration outlined above. It should be noted that it has also caused mildew growth throughout the underside of the grandstand which may be considered a potential health concern. In summary, the structure is 44 years old and approaching the end of its expected service life. Water infiltration has caused the deterioration of both concrete and steel components and unless the deterioration mechanism (water penetration) is addressed, it is expected that the observed deterioration will continue at an increasing rate. In order to reinstate the grandstand to a serviceable condition, concrete and steel connection repairs must be completed and it is recommended that the replacement of all sealant joints be included with this work. All steel components with surface corrosion would be cleaned and coated and where section loss has occurred, supplementary reinforcement or full replacement of the connections would be completed. Given the configuration of the assembly, the repair /replacement of these components may prove very difficult, which may result in the process becoming an on-going maintenance item. To extend the service life of the structure over the long term, it was recommended that a waterproofing membrane be installed over the topside of the grandstand in addition to the repairs outlined above. Upgrades to the change rooms finishes and millwork should also be included with this work. Prior to the development of a specific scope of work and budget estimates, a more extensive investigation by man lift, would be required. At the time of the site review, it was not possible to accurately determine concrete and steel repair quantities from the ground level. It should be noted any repair work completed as part of this project would likely include annual maintenance costs in addition to the significant up front expenditures to make the structure safe. 3.11 Budget Costs Based on the site review, various repairs 1 remediation is recommended at the facility. For an inclusive budget estimate a ±25% variance should be allocated to costs provided in the table below for the recommended remedial repairs. It must be noted that in preparing the budgets for individual items, it has been assumed that a group of repairs will be completed at the same time. If individual items are completed, increased costs maybe expected. The cost of repairs is based upon the deterioration present at the time of the investigation and assumed unit prices. It is important to realize that the prices are not based on tendered specifications, but instead on general approaches and assumed quantities. The actual repair costs will depend on the prices received at the time of tendering andlor the actual quantities removed during the repair contract. Please note that the listed prices do not include HST or engineering fees associated with the preparation of specifications, and inspections for conformance with same. A table and graph has also been provided to depict the projected capital expenditures required over the next 20 years. It is recommended that the table of expenditures be reviewed each year and, be updated every five years to ensure that the current contribution is sufficient and meets the planning needs of the City of Kitchener. IRC 10776-LB10-103CR 16 7-41 ' Building Condition Assessment- Executive Summary ., . Kitchener Memorial Auditorium Complex - 400 East Avenue, Kitchener, Ontario ~, ~~- ~- A Facility Interior Components A2 Twin Pad Arenas A2.1 Arenas and Related A2.1.1 Concrete Slab Repairs to the Service Vestibule $12,000 10 - 20 Years A2.1.2 Interior Painting at Kiwanis and Kinsmen Arenas Incl. in item A4.6.4 5 -10 Years A2.2 Dressing Rooms and Related A2.2.1 Skate Tile Replacement in Dressing Rooms and Corridors $160,000 5 -10 Years A2.2.3 Dressing Room Millwork Refurbishment $31,000 10 - 20 Years A2.2.5 Dressing Room Washroom Areas Refurbishment $80,000 10 - 20 Years A2.3 Concessions, Kitchens and Related A2.3.1.3 Heated Viewing Kitchen/Concession Refurbishments including Accessibility Upgrades $42,000 0 - 2 Years A2.3.2.3 ~ Kiwanis Kitchen Refurbishments $83,000 ~ 5 -10 Years A2.4 Washrooms A2.4.2 ~ Accessibility Upgrades and other Basic Renovations to all W h $10,000 0 - 2 Years rooms as A2.4.3 Major Restoration to all Washrooms $310,000 10 - 20 Years A2.5 i Ancillary Rooms A2.5.1.1 Heated Viewing Major Renovations $42,000 5 -10 Years A2.5.2.2 Teaching Theatre Accessibility Upgrades $5,000 0 - 2 Years A2.5.3.1 First Aid Room Major Renovations $6,000 5 -10 Years A2.6 Fixtures A2.6.1.2 Electromagnetic Fire Door Holder Retrofitting $8,000 0 - 2 Years ~ A2.6.4.1 ~ Perimeter Guardrail Retrofit $14,000 0 - 2 Years ~ Kinsmen and Kiwanis Arenas Perimeter Board and Glass A2.6.5.1 $500,000 5 -10 Years Re lacement p A3 Administration Corridor A3.1 Corridors and General Assembly Areas A3.1.1 ~~ Main and U er Lobb Floorin Re lacement pp y 9 p 210 000 $ , 2 - 5 Years A3.1.2 Lower Lobby Skate Tile Replacement $30,000 2 - 5 Years A3.1.3 Accessibility Upgrades to the Central Staircase $12,000 0 - 2 Years IRC 10776-LB10-103CR 17 7-42 ' Building Condition Assessment- Executive Summary ., . Kitchener Memorial Auditorium Complex - 400 East Avenue, Kitchener, Ontario ~- ~. ~~- A3.2 Offices and Related A3.2.1 Office Area Carpet Replacement $20,000 5 -10 Years A3.2.2 Vinyl Tile Flooring Replacement $4,000 5 -10 Years A3.2.3 Millwork and Cabinetry Replacement $10,000 5 -10 Years A3.3 Concessions, Kitchens and Related A3.3.1.4 Lower Section of the Service Counter for Wheelchair $5 000 0 - 2 Years Accessibility , A3.3.1.5 ~ Ma~or Refurbishments to the Concession Areas 1 $98,000 0 - 2 Years A3.2.3 Major Refurbishments to the Upper Floor Kitchen $63,000 5 -10 Years A3.4 Washrooms Accessibility Upgrades and other Basic Renovations to all A3.4.2 Washrooms $6,000 0 - 2 Years A3.4.3 Major Renovations to all Washrooms $270,000 10 - 20 Years A3.5 Ancillary Rooms A3.5.1.1 Fitness Area Rubber Floor Tile Replacement $19,000 10 - 20 Years A3.5.2.1 Multi-Purpose Room Renovations $37,000 5 -10 Years A3.5.3.1 Exit Stairwell Floorin Re lacement g p $22 000 2 - 5 Years A3.5.4.1 West Entrance Vestibule Flooring Replacement $13,000 2 - 5 Years A3.5.4.2 East Entrance Vestibule Flooring Replacement $15,000 0 - 2 Years A3.5.4.3 East Vestibule Skylight Leak Investigation Incl. in item 0 - 2 Years ~~ B6.2.2 A3.6 Y Fixtures A3.6.3.2 Handrail Re lacement for all Exit Stairwells ~ $20 000 0 - 2 Years p A4 Dom Cardillo Arena A4.1 Dressing Rooms and Related A4.2.1 Dressing Room and Corridor Skate Tile Replacement $115,000 5 -10 Years A4.2.4 Major Washroom Area Renovations $92,000 10 - 20 Years A4.3 ~ Concessions, Kitchens and Related Lower Section of the Service Counters for Wheelchair A4.3.1.3 Accessibility $10,000 0 - 2 Years ~- A4.3.1.4 Major Concession Area Renovations $370,000 - 10 - 20 Years A4.3.2.5 Major Bar and Kitchen Renovations for the Suite Level Lounge $105,000 10 - 20 Years IRC 10776-LB10-103CR 18 7-43 ' Building Condition Assessment- Executive Summary ., . Kitchener Memorial Auditorium Complex - 400 East Avenue, Kitchener, Ontario ~- ~. ~~- A4.4 Washrooms i A4.4.2 Accessibility Upgrades and other Basic Renovations to all $10 000 0 - 2 Years , Washrooms A4.4.3 Major Renovations to all Washrooms $525,000 10 - 20 Years A4.5 ~ Corporate Suites A4.5.3 Major Renovations to all Suites $210,000 10 - 20 Years A4.6 Corridors and General Assembly Areas A4.6.4 Facility-wide Interior Painting $50,000 5 -10 Years A4.7 Ancillary Rooms A4.7.1.1 Event Level Office Renovations $20,000 2 - 5 Years A4.7.3.1 Major Press Boxes Renovations $35,000 10 - 20 Years A4.8 Fixtures A4.8.2.1 Red Seat Cushion Recovering $132,000 5 -10 Years A4.8.3.1 Rink Perimeter Boards and Glass Replacement $255,000 5 -10 Years A4.8.4.1 ~~ Protective Nettin at Rink Ends Re lacement 9 P $12 000 2 - 5 Years A4.9 ,Elevated Walkway A4.9.4 Structural Review of Catwalk to Determine Load Capacities $12,000 0 - 2 Years A4.9.9 Allowance to Amend Trip Hazards and Safety Concerns thrni inhni it tha 1111a1h~niav $30,000 0 - 2 Years ~I II V\.1 \..111VNL LI IV Y V tAll\VYL.1 V B BuildVing Envelope Components B2 Exterior Cladding B2.1 Architectural Block Masonry B2.1.1 Localized Block Repointing at the Top of the east Elevation $12,000 0 - 2 Years B2.1.2 Replacement of all Failed Vertical Expansion Joints Incl. in item l B7.4 0 - 2 Years B2.2 Exterior Insulated Finish System (EIFS) Repair of EIFS and Installation of Bollards at north end of the B2 2 ~ west Elevation (Option A) $11,000 0 - 2 Years B2 2 ~ Replacement of EIFS with Masonry at north end of the west $18,000 0 - 2 Years Elevation (Option B) B2.2.2 General Anticipated EIFS Repairs Throughout $30,000 10 - 20 Years B2.3 I Stone Masonry B2.3.1-3 Spalled Stone Repairs and Mortar Joint Repointing $18,000 0 - 2 Years IRC 10776-LB10-103CR 19 7-44 ' Building Condition Assessment- Executive Summary ., . Kitchener Memorial Auditorium Complex - 400 East Avenue, Kitchener, Ontario - ~. ~~- ~- B2.4 Cast-in-Place Concrete B2.4.1-2 ~ Concrete Crack and Spalling Repairs $5,000 ~ 0 - 2 Years B3 Concrete Landing and Related B3.1 ,Concrete Repairs and Installation of Waterproofing Membrane $10,000 0 - 2 Years B4 Soffits and Fascia B4.1 Investigation and Replacement of Twin Pads East Entrance $12,000 0 - 2 Years Canopy Soffit B5 Doors and Related B5.2 Common Exterior Doors B5.2.2 Localized Replacement of Older Exterior Doors $11,000 10 - 20 Years B5.3 ~ Overhead Doors B5.3.2 Re lacement of all Overhead Doors ~ p 25 00010 - 20 Years $ , B6 Windows and Related B6.1 Windows B6.1.2 Localized Replacement of Older Windows $38,000 2 - 5 Years B6.2 Skylights ~. - - - 66.2.2 ~ Water Penetration Investi ation at Twin Pads Arena Sk li ht 9 y9 $4,000 ~ 0 - 2 Years B7 Sealants B7.1 - 3 ~ Perimeter Sealant Replacement Throughout the Facility ~ $16,000 0 - 2 Years R7 d Ranlaramant of all l/artiral FYnancinn .Inintc ~~ nnn n _ ~ Yaarc C Roofing Components C1 Roof repairs at R-2, R-11 to R-17 and R-20 to R-22 $8,200 Immediately C2 Roof replacement at R-9 and R-22 C3 Roof replacement at R-12 and R-15 to R-21 C4 Roof replacement at R-1 to R-8, R-10 and R-11 $62,500 $1,787,800 $1,876,000 0 - 2 Years 2 - 5 Years 5 - 10 Years C5 Roof replacement at R-14 $12,000 10 - 20 Years C6 Roof replacement at R-13 $78,200 10 - 20 Years D Mechanical, Electrical and Life Safety D1 Mechanical -Dom Cardillo Arena D1.1 Replace Washroom /General Exhaust Fans $10,400 5 - 10 Years D1.2 Replace Kitchen Hood Exhaust Fans $6,900 10 - 20 Years IRC 10776-LB10-103CR 20 7-45 ' Building Condition Assessment- Executive Summary ., . Kitchener Memorial Auditorium Complex - 400 East Avenue, Kitchener, Ontario .. D1.3 Replace dehumidifiers D1.4 Replace MUA 1 B ..- $400,000 $130,000 .- . .-. 0 - 2 Years 10 - 20 Years D1.5 Replace MUA 2B $130,000 10 - 20 Years D1.6 Replace MUA 2A $130,000 10 - 20 Years D1.7 Replace MUA 1A $130,000 10 - 20 Years D1.8 Replace MUA-3 (Kitchen MUA) $25,000 20+ Years D1.9 D1.10 Replace MUA-4 (Kitchen MUA) Replace MUA-5 (Kitchen MUA) $25,000 $25,000 20+ Years 20+ Years D1.11 Replace HVAC-3 $12,000 10 - 20 Years D1.12 Replace HVAC-4 $8,000 10 - 20 Years D1.13 Replace HVAC-5 $8,000 10 - 20 Years D1.14 Replace HVAC-6 D1.18 Replace HVAC-7 $8,000 $18,000 10 - 20 Years 10 - 20 Years D1.19 Replace HVAC-8 $18,000 10 - 20 Years D1.20 Replace HVAC-9 $8,000 10 - 20 Years D1.21 Replace HVAC-10 $18,000 10 - 20 Years D1.21 Replace HVAC-11 D1.23 Replace HVAC-12 (Rangers) $8,000 $6,800 10 - 20 Years 10 - 20 Years D1.24 Replace HVAC-13 (Rangers) $5,500 10 - 20 Years D1.25 Replace HVAC-14 (Rangers) $5,500 10 - 20 Years D1.26 Replace HRV-1 $6,000 5 - 10 Years D1.27 1 Replace HRV-2 $6,000 5 - 10 Years D1.28 Replace HRV-3 D1.29 Replace HRV-4 $6,000 $6,000 5 - 10 Years 5 - 10 Years D1.30 Allowance for duct work replacement $27,500 10 - 20 Years D1.31 Allowance for diffuser replacement $18,750 10 - 20 Years D1.32 Replace Steam Boiler 1 $40,000 0 - 2 Years D1.33 Replace Stream Boiler 2 D1.34 Replace condensate pumps $40,000 $22,500 5 - 10 Years 2 - 5 Years D1.35 Replace unit heaters $14,400 5 - 10 Years D1.36 Allowance for replacement of hydronic piping $50,000 0 - 2 Years IRC 10776-LB10-103CR 21 7-46 ' Building Condition Assessment- Executive Summary ., . Kitchener Memorial Auditorium Complex - 400 East Avenue, Kitchener, Ontario .. .- . ..- .-. D1.37 Replace compressors $105,000 2 - 5 Years D1.38 Replace condenser $100,000 10 - 20 Years D1.39 Replace refrigeration controls $50,000 2 - 5 Years D1.40 Replace chiller $75,000 10 - 20 Years D1.41 Replace refrigeration piping $300,000 5 - 10 Years D1.42 Plumbing fixtures and trim Incl. with Interior Assessment 10 - 20 Years D1.43 Replace hot water heater $8,000 10 - 20 Years D1.44 Replace hot water storage tank $13,000 10 - 20 Years D1.45 Replace water softeners $7,500 2 - 5 Years D1.46 Allowance for plumbing piping upgrades $31,250 0 - 2 Years D1.47 Replace Zamboni water heater $17,000 10 - 20 Years D1.48 Replace Zamboni storage tanks $15,000 2 - 5 Years D1.49 Replace Zamboni heat exchanger $5,000 5 - 10 Years D1.50 Allowance to replace pumps $20,000 5 - 10 Years D1.51 Allowance to replace major kitchen equipment Incl. with Interior Assessment 10 - 20 Years D2 Mechanical -Twin Pad Arenas & Administration Corridor D2.1 ~ Replace Heat Pump 1 $2,800 0 - 2 Years D2.2 Replace Heat Pump 2 $14,000 10 - 20 Years D2.3 Replace Heat Pump 3 $1,700 0 - 2 Years D2.4 Replace Heat Pump 4 $1,700 0 - 2 Years D2.5 Replace Heat Pump 5 $1,600 0 - 2 Years D2.6 Replace Heat Pump 6 $1,900 0 - 2 Years D2.7 Replace Heat Pump 7 $1,600 0 - 2 Years D2.8 Replace Heat Pump 8 $1,700 0 - 2 Years D2.9 Replace Heat Pump 9 $2,500 0 - 2 Years D2.10 Replace Heat Pump 10 $1,900 10 - 20 Years D2.11 Replace Heat Pump 11 $1,700 0 - 2 Years D2.12 Replace Heat Pump 12 $14,000 10 - 20 Years D2.13 Replace Heat Pump 13 $14,000 0 - 2 Years D2.14 Replace Heat Pump 14 $15,000 0 - 2 Years IRC 10776-LB10-103CR 22 7-47 ' Building Condition Assessment- Executive Summary ., . Kitchener Memorial Auditorium Complex - 400 East Avenue, Kitchener, Ontario .. ..- .- . .-. D2.15 Replace Heat Pump 15 $16,000 0 - 2 Years D2.16 Replace Heat Pump 16 $14,000 10 - 20 Years D2.17 Replace Heat Pump 17 $16,000 0 - 2 Years D2.18 Replace Heat Pump 18 $10,000 0 - 2 Years D2.19 Replace Heat Pump 19 $2,900 0 - 2 Years D2.20 Replace Supply Air Unit #1 $40,000 2 - 5 Years D2.21 Replace Supply Air Unit #2 $40,000 2 - 5 Years D2.22 Replace general exhaust fans $16,700 2 - 5 Years D2.23 Replace MUA-1 (kitchen) $25,000 0 - 2 Years D2.24 Replace MUA-2 (twin pad mech) $40,000 0 - 2 Years D2.25 Replace Dehumidifiers $450,000 2 - 5 Years D2.26 Allowance for duct work replacement $60,000 5 - 10 Years D2.27 Allowance for grilles and diffuser replacement $25,625 2 - 5 Years D2.28 Replace boilers $90,000 10 - 20 Years D2.29 Replace cooling tower $42,000 5 - 10 Years D2.30 Replace chiller $100,000 2 - 5 Years D2.31 Allowance to replace pumps $105,000 2 - 5 Years D2.32 Allowance for replacement of hydronic piping $18,750 5 - 10 Years D2.33 Replace uniUradiant heaters $33,600 5 - 10 Years D2.34 Replace compressors $210,000 2 - 5 Years D2.35 Replace condenser $200,000 10 - 20 Years D2.36 Replace controls ~ $100,000 2 - 5 Years D2.37 Replace chiller $150,000 2 - 5 Years D2.38 Replace refrigeration piping $600,000 0 - 2 Years D2.39 Replace heat exchanger $8,000 10 - 20 Years D2.40 Replace storage tank $25,000 2 - 5 Years D2.41 Allowance to replace pumps $11,400 5 - 10 Years D2.42 Replace Zamboni storage tanks $15,000 2 - 5 Years D2.43 Replace Zamboni heat exchanger $5,000 10 - 20 Years D2.44 Plumbing fixtures and trim Incl. with Interior Assessment 10 - 20 Years IRC 10776-LB10-103CR 23 7-48 ' Building Condition Assessment- Executive Summary ., . Kitchener Memorial Auditorium Complex - 400 East Avenue, Kitchener, Ontario .. D2.45 Allowance to replace plumbing piping D2.46 Allowance to replace major kitchen equipment .- . ..- .-. $21,750 5 - 10 Years Incl. with Interior 10 - 20 Years Assessment D3 Electrical -General D3.1 Replace main transformer $40,000 10 - 20 Years D3.2 Replace main generator $60,000 10 - 20 Years D3.3 D3.4 Upgrade service entrance switchgear (loading ramps) Replace exterior parking lot lighting $50,000 $100,000 10 - 20 Years 10 - 20 Years D3.5 Replace exterior building lighting $12,000 5 - 10 Years D3.6 Replace fire alarm panel and annunciator $25,000 10 - 20 Years D4 Electrical & Life Safety -Dom Cardillo Arena D4.1 Replace original main switchgear w/ Tx's D4.2 Replace main distribution panels $75,000 $30,000 5 - 10 Years 10 - 20 Years D4.3 Replace original distribution panels $30,000 5 - 10 Years D4.4 Renovation of distribution panels and Tx's $30,000 20+ Years D4.5 Replace emergency lighting generator $35,000 0 - 2 Years D4.6 Allowance to replace emergency lights and exits $9,750 0 - 2 Years D4.7 D4.8 Replace low level lights Replace bowl level lights $9,500 $13,500 5 - 10 Years 2 - 5 Years D4.9 Replace suite lighting $16,250 10 - 20 Years D4.10 Replace ice lights $350,000 5 - 10 Years D4.11 Replace gas detection system $6,250 5 - 10 Years D4.12 Allowance to replace fire alarm devices D4.13 Allowance for wiring and devices power (2001 wiring) D4.14 Allowance for wiring and devices power (1950 wiring) $12,850 $11,250 $16,850 ~ 0 - 2 Years 10 - 20 Years 5 - 10 Years D5 Electrical & Life Safety -Twin Pad Arenas & Administration Corridor Replace distribution and Tx's $47,500 5 - 10 Years D5.2 Replace Administrative Corridor lighting D5.3 Replace arena lights D5.4 Replace seating and perimeter lights $24,500 $65,000 $15,500 2 - 5 Years 10 - 20 Years 2 - 5 Years D5.5 Replace dressing room area lights $10,250 2 - 5 Years IRC 10776-LB10-103CR 24 7-49 ' Building Condition Assessment- Executive Summary ., . Kitchener Memorial Auditorium Complex - 400 East Avenue, Kitchener, Ontario L I . ~ IYIAII l r A77G1IyGl LIGYAWI ~1117~A11A~IV11 'R'J~7JJJ~. E1.1 Replacement of door operators and associated hardware (interlocks, pick-up roller assemblies, door rollers, gibs, etc.). $15 000 ' E1.2 Replacement of power unit, control system, fixtures, wiring, etc. $60,000 E1.3 Upgrade of cab cosmetics (walls, flooring and ceiling). $20,000 0 - 2 Years E1.4 Replacement of underground hydraulic cylinders. 50 000 $145,000 E2 Passenger Elevator #2 (Installation #35721): E2.1 Replacement of door operators and associated hardware (interlocks, pick-up roller assemblies, door rollers, gibs, etc.). $30 000 ' E2.2 Replacement of power unit, control system, fixtures, wiring, etc. E2.3 U rade of cab cosmetics walls, floorin and ceilin p9 ( 9 9) $60,000 $20,000 2 - 5 Years E2.4 Replacement of underground hydraulic cylinders. $50,000 $160,000 E3 Auditorium Passenger Elevator (Installation #78879): E3.1 Valve replacement. $15,000 As Required E3.2 Replacement of door operators and associated hardware (interlocks, pick-up roller assemblies, door rollers, gibs, etc.), power unit, control system, fixtures, wiring, cab cosmetics, etc. $95,000 10 - 20 Years E4 Auditorium Passenger Elevator (Installation #80520): E4.1 Replacement of power unit and control system. $20,000 10 - 20 Years E5 Dining Room Lift (Installation #79430): f E5.1 ~ If unit is required, replacement with a more robust design. $30,000 ~ Discretionary F Score Clock Hoist i F1 Pandand cable connection replacement at hoist panel. ~ TBD ~ Immediately ~ G Accessibility Upgrades are as outlined in the Herrington Group Inc. report TBD /Included G1 specific repair costs were not provided). Note: Where with Interior As Required identified, accessibility upgrade costs have been included with Components renovations to interior components. IRC 10776-LB10-103CR 25 7-50 ' Building Condition Assessment- Executive Summary ., . Kitchener Memorial Auditorium Complex - 400 East Avenue, Kitchener, Ontario . 1 - 1 ~ - 1 1 1. 1 . 1 1 1 ' 1 / 1 ' 1 H Environmental Asbestos Containing Materials) H1 Dom Cardillo Arena, Twin Pads Arena and Office Corridor are NIA NIA identified as ACM free. Type 2 and 3 abatement required at the Centennial Stadium only H2 if extensive renovations or demolition is completed. All other TBD As Required work to be completed as a Type 1. I Centennial Stadium Grandstand 11 Additional investigation by man lift required to determine TBD 0 - 2 Years concrete and steel repair quantities and a specific scope of work. Expenditure: Immediately ~$8,200 Expenditure: 0 - 2 years Expenditure: 2 - 5 years $2,668,740 $3,475,770 Expenditures: 5 -10 years $3,697,300 Expenditures: 10 - 20 years $4,127,190 Expenditure: Discretionary ~ $30,000 IRC 10776-LB10-103CR 26 7-51 ' Building Condition Assessment- Executive Summary ., . Kitchener Memorial Auditorium Complex - 400 East Avenue, Kitchener, Ontario IRC prepared this report solely for the client named. The responsibilities of IRC are as described in the Terms of Reference and The Scope of Work. The material in this report reflects the opinion of IRC at the time of preparation and within the terms of reference as agreed. Any use, which a Third Party makes of this report, or any reliance on decisions based on it, are the responsibility of such Third Parties. IRC does warrant the accuracy of the identified information provided to IRC at the time of the report preparation. Unless provided in writing, but not limited to, mistakes, contacts, insufficient information or certification of such information is not the responsibility of IRC. Only the specific information or locations noted in the report have been reviewed. Although every reasonable effort was taken to identify defects, latent and hidden defects may affect the accuracy of this report. No physical or destructive testing and no design calculations have been performed unless indicated elsewhere in this report. We trust that the above is satisfactory for your purposes. If you have any questions or comments concerning the above please do not hesitate to contact our office. Yours very truly, IRC Building Sciences Group Inc. G---- Steve Krysa, P.Eng Project Manager Michael Hensen, P.Eng. Vice President IRC 10776-LB10-103CR z~ 7-52 ~~ ~- ~. ~~ L t V ~+ 0 ~+ '~, ~'` ,• ~~. i ~- ~ ~ ~,~ z. o e~ ~~ ~~ ,. 3 G1 ate, ~~ v ~ Q~ ~ O ~ = a o G1 L ~ ~a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ,o ~ i N Q ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ V W ~ Y ~ ~ O 'qp ~1 ++ . r ' L A N W ~ Y 1 ~ Q~ ~--I ~--I O N ~--I N i M N 1 _ ~a~ ~~ ~ a , ~ ~~ F, ~~ ~ it - ~~ ~~ .. - li i I ~ - 1 ,. ~ ~ I ~~ N r ~ ~ o ~ N "~f E Y ~ X ~ L ~ U ~ O ~ V j . L ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ U ~ ~ rl ~ •--• ~ ~j ~ I U ~ ~ U Y ~ N O ~ }, ~ i N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O N v~ ~ ~ ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ N ~ t0 - O ~ O ~ ~ U ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ p +~ ~ ~ N i O ~ v U i N ~ ' ~ ~ ~ . -~ in ~ ±-' ~C 0 +~ ~ H ~ ~ p U `~ O N D m • • • • n r~ y _~ . ~ ~~_: .~ _ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ` ~ .- ~- ~_ - - ~ ~~~ ~ _ ~ ~~ - ' ~~~ o e ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~. ~-4r- F , N r °o ~f v o ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ v o ~ ~ ~ ~ Lo +~ tzo ~' '~ C ~ ~ `~ ~ u~ O ~, v ~ ~ ~ ~ v a~ V ~ c ~ ~ L ~ v v o c a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ p Q ~ ~ ~ >, - ~ (0 > ~ (O ~ U L N O ~ ~ ~ co p U ~ a~ ~n d ~ ~co - U ~ Q ~ U ~ }' " _ ~ in U - Y ri N m ~ W vii Y t m • • • n _~ ~ ~~_ r~ y .~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~. ~~ ~~~ ~~ ~_ - - ~ ~~~ ~ _ ~ ~~ - ~ ~~~ o e ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~ •~ ~ ~. ~-~r- F . ~~ ~- u R ., ~~ `'®r`~ c 0 V V +~ ~ ~n O ~ ~ N U ~ N ~ ~ O ~ 41 O = . 0 ~ ~ ~ U ~ ~ ~ p 0 O ~ c~i~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ i fB N ~ _ ~ Q ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ ' *-' ~ ~ +~ ~ N t ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ p ~ ~ - ~ ~ ~ ~ '~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ N f6 ~ ~ U ~ U ~ U ~ ~ ~ ~ oC v ac + D Y .~ Y CC Y • ~ • • • • n r~ y _~ ~ ~n_ .~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~. ~~ ~~~ ~~ ~_ - - ~ ~~~ ~ _ ~ ~~ - ~ ~~~ o e ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~ •~ ~ -~r F . ~~ ~- u R ., ~~ `'®r`~ N 0 0 •~ V 4~ .. r~~ •~ V cv Y L O nA Y O .N U fB Q N O • a~ a~ U a--~ Y N t O O Q N N i O cv O • s a~ a~ an cv N 0 fB ~ N ~ ~ ~ _ s ~ ~ ~ L ~--~ ~ N '. L ~ U ~ ~ f0 ~ U ~ ~ fB ~ Q ~ 1 a1 L a..~ O ~ Q ~ • O L Q~ ~--~ L Q~ Q~ U c cv a • (/') ~--~ L/'1 ri 0 N t U L cf~ G U ~ f0 c-I ~ O ~ N i i O ~ Q ~ i O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ co N ~ O +' a~ ~ ~ °' _ ~ '~ ~ E °' x H a~ • n n _~ ~ ~~_ r~ y ~~ ~. ~~ ~~~ ~~ ~_ - - ~ ~~~ ~ _ ~ ~~ - ~ ~~~ o e ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~ •~ ~ ~. ~-4r- F , N r ~ a, N ~ ~. n - ~ ~ ca ~ ~ o c ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o c o o Q +~ c~ ~ +~ > O ~ v C Q i ~ ~ O O .. ~ ~ ~ N ~ ~ t1A i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ }~ ~ C ~ ~ v~ ~ ~ O ~ Q > O >. ~ v ~ i ~ v ~ ~ ~ 0 t - c~ U }' a..i fB = - ~--~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ U U ~ N ~ q~ QJ ~ f0 i L ~ ~ a"' O vinj ~ ~ ~ C f6 ~ ~ ~ i E~ v ~ ~ ~ v •- ~ ~ a, a~ ~ ~ N a ~ o o=c a o a~ .. V ri c~i m ~ Sri F ,~"f ~ ~~- ~~ .~ `~ ~~ G ,. o ,~.~r ~ ._ ~ o ~ V o V +~ ~ V1 ._ U .~ ~ L V ~ ~ ~^^~ ~ . _ ~ ~ ~--r ~ - ~ ._ ~ ~ .- ~ V ~ Q 4~ Q c~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 4~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 4~ +~ ~ L •- ~ ~ o a~ c~ ~ ~ ~ ~ V 4~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ L c~ ~ ~ w 4~ ~ ._ ~ ~ ~ c~ ~ ~ - ~ ._ ._ ~ c~ ~ ~ m w U ~ 0 ~ U • • • .~ ~ ~ s~ ` ,,. fl[ , ~. . ~ .~i ~ ~ .. @dr ~ -- ~., u1^^~~ J `~ r -. 1 ..~' ~, _. o ~ ~.. ~ ~ ,~! ~' _ F '~ ~4 u ~ ~~ • ~~ ~- u R ., ~~ `'®r`~ f~ H ~~ .; f~ L 0 n ~ ~ ~ ~ f6 ~ m ~ ~ \ ~ f6 ~ Q ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Q ~ O ~ U ~ p ~ a--+ V t/~ ~ U ~ ~ a--+ ~ ~ 0 ~ i ~ ~ v ca O O ~ v . ~ ~ Q ~ ~ ~ cn ~ ~ ~ c i ~ ~ ~ ~ .~ ~ D .Q ~ ~ ~ a ~ ~ ~ p w ~ ~ - ~ ~ U ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ trio ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Q i ~ 0 w . ~ J w w . ~ ~ N N ~ o ~ m ~ ~ o ~ ~ •°' a ~o o °-' ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ca a,° ~ ~ ~ a~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ >. c~ o o ~ ~ a~ Q m U 2 ~ ~C oC oC cn ~C ~C • • • • • • • • • • • r~ y _~ ~ ~n_ ~~ ~. ~~ ~~~ ~~ ~_ - - ~ ~~~ ~ _ ~ ~~ - ~ ~~~ o e ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~ •~ ~ ~. ~-4r- F , ~~ ~- u R.,' ~~ `'®r`~ N ~+ 3 a~ .~ a~ oc ~ ~ ._ a~ ~ 0 o~ °' a .~ ~ +~ 0 V • U C6 a..~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 01 ZI • 0 O ~ 0 ~ ~~~VVV \i~/ ._ ~ ~ ~ ~ s 0 ~ p ,_ ~ ~ ~ v U I ~ ~, ~ X ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ U ~ Q ~ ~ ~ ~' ~ ~ - ~ ~ 0 ~--~ v ~ ~ 0 _ ~"~ c~ , O ~ /1 1 0 ~ ~ ~ ,4~ v 4J ~ .~, ~ ,_ ~ V .0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 4~ cn -_ ~ ._ - U ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ _ CAA ~ = U ~ ~ 0 ~ ~' ~ ~ ~- oC v 0 0 X 0 ~- Z +~ ~ c~ v U ~ 4~ ~ ~ o `~ ~,~, p ., ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a~ U _ ~ +~ ~- ~ ~ ~- X ~ ~, 0 ~ - - c~ ~ ~ 0 0 ~ ~C ~ . _ ~ ~ 0 ~, ~ ~ c~ .- .- 4~ ~ ~ ~ `~ ~ ~ cn ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ cn .-. ~ ~ ~ 4~ ~ 4~ +~ O U 4~ +~ ~ 4~ 0 ~ ~ ~ _ ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ ._ ~ ~ ._ 0 a~ 0 Q J O ~C J ~ > J l0 • • • • n r~ y - -~ ~ ~n_ ~~ ~~ ,~f ~~~ ~~ ~_ - - ~ ~'~ ~ - ~~~ - ~ ~~~ e ~~ ~~ ,. ~~ ~ •~ ~ ~ ~. ~-4r- F, ~ ~~, ~- ~. ... ~~ ~. N ~+ N ~n ~ o i v I~ ca V ~ ~ ~ L ~ N 4.1 ~ ~ U ~ ~ .~ ~ ~ ~ fa ~ ~ fa to •N ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ m ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ca ~ ~ +~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ V ~ ci ~ U N ~ U ~ • • • 4J ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 ~+ .- cn ~ Q 4~ ~ +~ ~, ._ cn ~ ~ - - - ~ +~ ~ rl 0 >' ~, 4~ ~ ~ '- ~ .. O N v +-+ ~ ~ ~ +~ - ~ ~ N o ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ._ ~ ~ W .. _ _ _ - ~ V +~ ~ ._~ -J 4~ ._ U Q~ ~' ~ ~ 4~ ~ 4~ ~ ~ ~, c~ 4~ qA >, - 0 0 ~ 0 ~ X ~+ cn c6 p rl 0 . ~, .- 0 ~ ~- ~ . ~ - p N 4J +~ Q +~ ~ ~ 4~ cn ~, Q Q 4~ L ~' ~ ce ~ p , - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ , p cn p ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ > L - U ~ Q._ ~ ~ v L U~ c~ O V • • • • • r~ y -~ ~ ~~_ ~~ ~~ ,~` ~~~ ~- ; ~_ - - ~ ~'~ ~ _ ~ ~~ - ~ ~~~ e ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~ •~ ~ ~ ~ ~-4r- F, ~ ~~, ~- ~. ... ~~ ~. •~ ~ 0 n U = ~, ~ 0 ~ -_ c~ ~ c - > OC ~ ~ ~ +, ~ 4~ cn 0 +~ +~ ~ ~ _ c~ . _ s , ~ 0 ~ ~ s +~ ~ _ ~ 3 ~ + ~ Q ~ U ~ 0 ~ X 4J ~ ~ U ~ 4J ~ ~ ~ ~, ~ _ ~, ~ ~ ~ U ~ ~ ~ ~ _ ~ ~ .~ ~ ~ ~, cn ~ 0 3 - ~ 0 0 ~ . _ ~A c~ ~0 ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ 0 Q ~ ~ ~ aA ~ - U ~ ~ +~ +~ U ~ Z cn ~ w ~ - ~ 0 ~U U~ ._ LL • • • • • M n r~ y -~ ~ ~~_ ~~ ~~ ,~` ~~~ ~- ; ~_ - - ~ ~'~ ~ _ ~ ~~ - ~ ~~~ e ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~ •~ ~ ~ ~. ~-4r- F, ~ ~~ ~- u R ., ~~ `'®r`~ biA 3 G~ H O OC N L cn 4J 3 N O 4J O a~ E ~a U O +~ co O C a--+ i O N i cv Q • U 2 Y N t t .~ 41 i cv t ca +~ v ca m cv c U ~ 2 ~ ~ O Y ~, N ~ t ~ ~ ~n O ~ ~ ~ ~ U '- 0 L L O Q Q N ~ t ~ ~ ~ t t t]A +~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ t ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ i Y ~ U ~ f0 • O +~ U L ClA U O U a~ a~ +~ 0 aA +~ aA +~ ~' ~ ~ ~J O > '+~ C Q O ~ ~ q~lp O ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ X a--~ ~ U ?' 2 N ~ O Y U r-, ~--~ N V N cn a~ L ~--~ .~ L ~--~ Q~ U 2 Y • N L Q~ ~~ ~--~ .~ ~--~ .~ a--' Q a~ ' ~ n .~ N f6 U N N ~N cv O Q O N H • U 2 Y T cv O cv a~ a~ a~ _~ ~ ~~_ r~ y .~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~. ~~ ~~~ ~~ ~_ - - ~ ~~~ ~ _ ~ ~~ - ~ ~~~ o e ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~ •~ ~ ~. ~-~r F . r ~ ~ ~, ~ '° +~ ~ ~ J~ ~ ~ X - X00 ~ a~,px a~ ~ O c~1 ~~ ~ O~ ~ O v I ~ - v~ p N ~ p ~.~ ~ i i 3 G1 ~ oo ~ ~, ~ ~ o ~ Z QN O N ~ ~ - ~ V ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ .~ Y ~~ °o~~ ~~cv 3 '- Q ~ ~~ ~ c~i~ ~ O ~~^ O~ N ~ N O a--+ N ~ v dA cn ~, _ ~ V V i •• ~n tZp ~ N cp ~ ~ ~ +~ i N i ~•~~ ~ 3~ Y~ N v~'i ~ .~ ~ ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Q p O v ~ riv,v, McBCB Q~ a UO Q • . . . • - ~ i;. J' f I- ~~ .. - ~~ ~- u R ., ~~ `'®r`~ v O V f~ N f+ m Q •~ ~~ V 0 V 4~ 0 L ~ V l ~ ~ ~,/ i 0 - >'~ +~ ~ ~ O U +~ 0 +, '- ._ ._ v ._ O = ~ ~ ~ I~ OC ~ ~ ~ ~ cn d1 ~ ~ > ~ ~ II w cn , ~ ~ 0 0 ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ _ +~ .- ~ ~ ~C ~ 0 .- ~ ~ 0 U 4~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 4~ c~ ~' ~ 4~ 4~ 0 0 c~ ~ ~ ~ ~ X > .- ~ U Us - ~ ~ cn tl~ w 4~ ~ • • • • • • • • +~ a~ c a~ m a--~ V . ~ O ~ ~ ~ Q ~ ~ ~ ~ 00 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ II ~ ~ ~ c+-+n ~` c~i ~ N ~ O ~^ U ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ c.~ ca U ~ ~ J ~ ~ ~ ~ M ~C O ~ • • • • a--+ U ~ Q ~ . O N ~ ~ ~ ~ N ~ 0 ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ V N ~` ~ Ca 41 to ~ to t/) ~ ~ ~' ~G 0 a + i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ _ N ~ i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ J ~ c i~ Q ~ r-I • • • • n ~~ ~ ~~ 7~ °~ ^' n ~ 7 E&" 7 a,~ ~~~ ~~ ~~' ~, ~~ _ ~®~ .- l eZ ~ lu ~ i~' ~' i$! ~ - ~~ ~- W ~' u R ., ~~ `' N Q V H V •~ .~ Q ._ ~ ~ ~ ~ LL ~ .. ~ ~ ~ 0 L ao L V 0 ~ ~ ~ 0 V +~ ~ V ~ ~ ~ L i ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ V s V .. ~ V ~~ 3 .~ ~ 3 ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O Q z 0 U _ ,~ oC - .. ~ ~ m~ o Q o 0 a~ ~- ~ . o '^ ~ a ~ ~ ~o Q 3 ~o ~ ~ ~ W Z t!~ ih ~l/~ V ~ ~ p ~ p ~ .0 ~ Q _ .. ~+~ ~ c L a ~~ ~ o .~ m~ ~ ~ o ~~ _ ~ ~, ~ _ = ~ N ~ ~ ~ Q ,4A L I.A ~ M x W ~ l0 iJ~ ~ i1~ rl iJ1~ ~ ~ O ~ '~ u ~ O ~ ~ ..a QZ o ~ u m ~ ~ to 0 ~ ~'~ ~ ~ O -_ ~ ~ ~ l0 0m ~ rl t~ ~ ~ 3 ~' ~ U a~ ~ 0 +~ 0 ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ v ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a~ ~ ~ L ~ ~ ° v 3 .~ ~ v .~ ~' ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i o a~ ~ ~ ~ .-. ~ ~ ~ - ~ ~- c ~ ~ ~ v O o U ~ .v ~ ~ O ~ Q~ ~~ U = ~i ~ x Q ~ ~ ~ .~ Y ~ ~ u f~ L v i 0 Q v X v C o +~ '~ v '~ ~ 0 ~~ ~~ ~ o v v ~ +~ ~ O c~ >_ v v ~L ~ ~ Q ~"~ ~„~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ u O ~ . C a"' ~ O 2 ~ c ~ +~ ~ Y ~ v v > O O ~ ~ U +.+ ~, ~ Y ~ ~ U .-. v v v U ~_ ~ *' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ v o ~ U ~ ,~ " v v~~~~ ~+~_~c~ L fa - O Q.~3~~ v ~ ~ p ~ v ~ ~ ~ ~_v~~ ~ v ~ 0 0 fa ~ ~ U ~ m C ~ ~ v ~ ~ 0 v L C ~ hA ~+ ~ v O i ~ ~ ~ ~ a ~ i ~ ~ v O c ~ o v ~ ~ 0 . ~ ~ ~ Q O 33`~~00 o~v~`~~ vL~v v~~~~~ v o- ~~v°33 L U U vQ'}~22 ~ c ~ o ~ ~ .. cn O c }, Y Y p U O ~ ~ ~ ~ a z rl N N7 O ~ Ilt n n ~ ,~ __ ~~ °~~ ~ = li ~ ~" ~,~ ~I~` ®~ ~~ - rii ,~ ~~ ~ ~;R ~, .,, .~ E, F ~~ ~- u R ., ~~ N ~+ r~ ~ U ~ 2 Q ~ oC c ~ Y o `~ c +, v o ~~ N O ~ ~ a~ o - ~ .V .~ ~ ~ ~ C N N N N U ~ ~ ~ O ~ C ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ to ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ O cv ~--- Q ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ - ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ a~ ~ ~ N +' ~ U .-. }, ~ 3 N m N O ~ ~ aJ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ O O Q }, U O O ~ ~ O O ~ ~ U > -' o o L z o ~~ z N ~ ~ ~ ~Y ~ ~ ~ N ~ ~ ?~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ M ~ U ~ t ~ N ~ ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N U O Z ~ ,~ ~ ~ O .~ ~ w O O O U f0 V ~ = ~ fB ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ X ~ ~ L ~ ~ Ca0 ~ ~ ~ U ~ U w ~ ~ 00 n r~ y _~ ~ ~n_ .~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~. ~~ ~~~ ~~ ~_ - - ~ ~~~ ~ _ ~ ~~ - ~ ~~~ o e ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~ •~ ~ -~r F . N ~ rrf ~ ~ ~ f ~ ~ ~ ~ - f0 ~--~ (n ~ N ~ ~ ~ •~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ L N ~ ~ ~n D ~ ~ N ~ +~ +' i ~~ ~ ~ ~'N ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ pU ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ }' Y cB Q }' ~ ~ t1A N N (/') - X a~ - ~ ~ O a~ I a~ Q N I ~ ~ Q ~ ~ 3 ~ Q p~ V1 ~ ~ Q lp U 'O ~ O N ~ cp cn X N ~ ~ s O I N ~ ~ O~ ~ M ~ rl ~ ~ O N ~ Q N ~~~~~ ~ Q TO'j ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ O X ~ cv ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ H~Ov vii O~' OZ O~ Z . . . . • n _~ ~ ~~_ r~ y .~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~. ~~ ~~~ ~~ ~_ - - ~ ~~~ ~ _ ~ ~~ - ~ ~~~ o e ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~ •~ ~ -~r F . N ~f o ~j L I~ - O ~ Q ~ L ~ co U }' ~ ci'f C O ~ U ~ V ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ }' ~U .L ~ O ~ U ~ ~ C U I .~ t .~ Y L ~ L ~ N N N 4J a1 N ~ ~ ~ }~~/ p N ~ a1 Q /~ V ~ U ~ U ~ O Z ~ Z ~ Z • . • F ,~"f ~ ~~- ~~ .~ ~~ ~- u R ., ~~ `'®r`~ n 1 ~U fp IL O i O U d.J i ~+ X Z ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ~ O ~ +~ ~ ~ dA i ~ ~ ~ 2 ~ UA ~ ._ ~ ~ co ~ ~ ~ a cv ~ ~ ~ a _~ ~ ~~_ r~ y .~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~. ~~ ~~~ ~~ ~_ - - ~ ~~~ ~ _ ~ ~~ - ~ ~~~ o e ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~ •~ ~ ~. ~-~r F . ~~ ~- ~. ~~ ~. dA •-+ N ~+ r~~ u ++ G~ D +++++ O~ ~ ++++ 1 ~` ~ ~ ++++ ~~ O , ~ ++++ ~~ O ' .+++ c ++++ 9~ ~ ° .~~~ .... ~ Q s~ ^ ° .... ~ ~ ` ° o w ..... ff 0 ~~ o a~ ..... ~ ~ ~ ~~ L Q 0 ~ •~~~~~ ~ ~ ` O ~ •~~~ O O •~~~ ~ •~~~ ~O Q •~~~ ~ •~~~ ~O O •~~~ ~ •~~~ ~O O~ •~~ 9~ ~~' .++ so °~ .~~~ ~o o~ ~- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O ~ ~ N o 0 C fl ~ N ~ ~ ~~ ~- ~. ~~ O f~ N ~ ~ L ~ s V ~ +~ ca ~ ~ a~ D o .+++++++ .+++++++ O~, O , ~ ++++++++ ~ 6'~ ~~ O ........ ~~ O , ++++++++ ~ 9 ` , O ~ .... .... c ~ s ` o , ^ ~ ~~ o ~~ w ~~ ~ . ` ~ o ~ ~ ~ w on o ~ cso p o~ ~o ~° o 9~ so C ~ 0 0 ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ ~ N O o 0 ~ ~ N O ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 0 0 ~U (~ ._ t~ U 0 a~ c~ M n 1 ~~ ~- R ., ~~ `' s L r~7 •++~~ ++~~ •+~< ++~ •+~~ •+s~ •+~< •+~~ +++~~ •++~~ +++t + +++t + + +++~~ +++~~ ++~~ ++~< ++t +++~< +++~< ++t +++~ ++~~ +++~ o~ o~ ~~ o~ ~'~ o~ ~L O~, 9~ O~, S~ O~, ~L O~, ~"t O~, ~t O~, ~L O~, O~ O~, ~o o~ ~'o o~ ~o o~ `90 O~, so o~ ~o o~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ' ~ N O o0 C~ ~ N ' ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~, f~ ~ ~ Q L.L O W N L Q L i--~ C W X O O 0 Ef} i O O Eft N N N O n n ~~ ~- u R ., ~~ `'®r`~ 0 c~ ~ cc ~ a, ~ > ~ L ~ a ~c ~ o •- +~ ~ ~ ~ a, ~ D - o~ o~ ~~ o~ ~~ o~ ~~ o~ 9~ O~, SAO ~~ O~ ~'.C O~, c'~ O~, !~ O~, O~ O~ ~O O~, `~O O~ ~O O~, 9~ O~, SD O~ ~O O~, ~--~ U D U U D U X W (n^ N V• ' ^~ n~ W ~~ n~ W O V+ W W O O _~ U 0 a~ 0 c~ c7 N O Z 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N O 00 C~ ~ N O ~ ~ ~~ ~- ~'' R ~ ,. 1 `' 1 d O •- +' .-. O ~ ~ O O ~ O i O ~ ~ N n ~ N ~ ~ ~ Q 41 ~ V .~ O ~ ~ O N ... 1 ~M~~~O aauay~~i}~ ~ML'l~ S~ o~uoaol ~(e8 aapunul ~ua~l-~~u~~u~ oo~aa~eM ~ ~ ~ ~ aospuiM uo~sfiuiy~ afieaany ~d~an~ uopuo~ uo~6ui~an8 uo~~iuaeH sauiaey~~~ ~~S ~GngpnS aiaa~8 ~q~!uM u~~6n~/~ efinessissiW uae~~aeW afipiaquae~ uo~duaea8 ~ C~ C o ~ o ~ o ~ ~ N N ~ ~ O ~~ ~- u R ., ~~ `•®r`~ •~ •~ ~ Q ++ •- ~ ~V N ~ ~i ~ i t V O n n 00 N c~ N' 0 00 N 0 N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 °o ~ °o N °o ~ °o N °o ~ ~ N ~ ~ M M N lV ~ ~ ~ ~} bF} bF} {f} ~} bF} ~} {f} ~H I (y~noS O ,~U0~0 vpy6np pM pyso +, ~q~,y M o U°~l.~lUp ~ .-. ,~ ~ N u0~dcup~ 8 O 0 ~ 0 (y a ~ oN) o~u ° °o ~ ~ ~o e~n~ss~s ~ • s~ •W ~ ~ ai o ~M~~ ~0 ~ ~ ~ ~ oo~aa~~ M ~ ~, o o Sau~`~py~~ ~ ;S ~ ~ •N a,~pa a~ b dnoa ~ N II~H pu ~ ~ ~ (~saM) o ~ ~ ~uoao UO~~Ufi~ '~ n8 o ~ ~ o ~ - uopuo, ~ 3 c~ ~ pB~apU nyl ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ aos pu,M ~ ~ N UO~S~U~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O U a!,~a~8 • ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ +, ~ aauayo ~,1~ ~ L ~ o a'~p~aq~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ d 4 ~an~ X ~ N o ~ ~Ua~, ~,p ~ N ~ y~~y ~'ngpn ~ S aa~~aa (~s ~ L o ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 Q ~ 00 p~) o o p ~ ~ ~ r ~ N ~ M ~ (~ r ~. y - - ~ ~ ~n_ ~ ~ ~ ~.~ ~. ~~ ~~~ ~~ ~_ - - ~ ~~~ • ~ _ ~ ~~ - ~ ~~~ o e ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~ •~ ~ -4r- F , ~; ~~ ~- ., ~~ 1 •~ ~ ~ V ~ GJ Q ~ ~ N 0 V ~ ~ O 00 C'~ 00 C'~ V, _ ~ O C'~ O I` L ~ C'~ 00 00 r ~ ~ N ~ ~ oO ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ L N ~ ~ C~ N ~ w ~- ~ / n n 4~ ~' ~ I` 00 N ~ ~ c~ 00 I` I` _ ~ V ~ ~ ~ N L ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N ~ ~ ~ Q C~ 00 N t~ 0 ~ ~ n ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ N ~ O O O a N N C~ C~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O O O O O ~ N C~ N N N C'~ C'~ ~ In C~ ~_ U N .~ a~ a~ W r~ L L~ L 0 3 0 L .~ o~ a~ ~~ ~ N 0 m ~~ ~ c a, a~ ~~ N L Q~ (.} ~ ~ N w ~ .~ 1 - ~ ~ ~n_ , r ~. y - - - ~ ~ r '~ ~`~~-s ~~ ~_ - - ~ ~'~ . ~ ~~-^ ~. ~ ~ - ~~~ ,~ ~~ ~ ~~ ,. ~+ ~~ ~ •~ ~ ~ ~. ~-4r- F, i ~~ ~- u R ., ~~ `'®r`~ ~+ X Z O ca N N i d U N U v tw c~ a~ a~ U a--+ Y ~ ~'~ ~• ~~. ~~ i ~- ~ ~ ~,~ z. o e~ ~~ ~~ ,. n 1 0 0 U 0 a ~~~ v N _ ~a~ ~~ - ~ a , ~ ~~ F, ~~ ~ ~I - ~~ i~ ~ .. - li i I ~ - 1 ,. ~ ~ I ~~