HomeMy WebLinkAboutPDS-039-25Staff Report
If this information is required in an alternate accessible format, please contact the Accessibility
Coordinator at 905-623-3379 ext. 2131.
Report To: Planning and Development Committee
Date of Meeting: June 16, 2025 Report Number: PDS-039-25
Submitted By:
Reviewed By:
By-law Number:
File Number:
Report Subject:
Darryl Lyons, Deputy CAO, Planning and Infrastructure
Lee-Ann Reck, Deputy CAO, Public Services
Trevor Pinn, Deputy CAO/Treasurer
Rob Maciver, Deputy CAO/Municipal Solicitor
Mary-Anne Dempster, CAO
Resolution Number:
PLN 34.5 Heritage Property Files
Camp 30 Cafeteria Building – Heritage Impact Assessment for
Alternatives to Full Restoration and Accompanying High-Level Costing of
Options
Recommendations:
1.That Report PDS-039-25, and any related delegations or communication items, be
received;
2.That based on the estimated costs outlined in the Class D Estimate Lambs Road
Heritage Building (Attachment 4) and potential financial impact to the municipality,
staff recommend that Council proceed with either
i.Option 2 (Partial Retention in situ - passive adaptive reuse) or
ii.Option 3 (Footprint Delineation);
3.That the associated budget be allocated from Miscellaneous Capital Reserve Fund
to commence the work; and,
4.That all interested parties listed in Report PDS-039-25, be advised of Council’s
decision.
Municipality of Clarington Page 2
Report PDS-039-25
Report Overview
On October 28, 2024, Council received a Memo from the CAO’s Office and Public Services
(Attachment 1) regarding a budget decision on the Cafeteria Building at Camp 30 . In
response, Council directed staff to:
1. undertake a Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) to provide alternative options and
costing to commemorate the building rather than full restoration, including consulting
with the Heritage Committee and the Jury Lands Foundation, and
2. That staff report back to Council with the findings of the Heritage Impact Assessment
and provide recommendations.
To fulfill this direction, Stantec was retained to complete the HIA (Attachment 2) and
develop cost estimates (Attachment 4).
The HIA provides a range of alternatives to full restoration, each with varying impacts to the
site’s cultural heritage value and associated costs. These include: partial retention of exterior
first floor walls, retention of the footprint of the building, full demolition, and full demolition
paired with new construction.
The HIA recommends the Partial Retention in situ of the Cafeteria building as the preferred
heritage strategy alternative to full restoration of the building as per Council resolution. This
approach involves restoring the existing ground floor walls, and adaptively reusing the
space, either as a passive or active area. Estimated costs range from approximately $2.5
million (passive use) to $7.7 million (active use).
From a financial standpoint, Option 2 (Partial retention – passive) and Option 3 (Footprint
Delineation) are considered the most feasible.
The draft HIA, excluding costing, was presented to the Clarington Heritage Committee and
the Jury Lands Foundation at their meetings on May 20 and May 28, respectively. Stantec is
scheduled to present the full draft HIA, including costing, at the Planning and Development
Committee on June 16th.
The purpose of this report is to (i) present the HIA for the Camp 30 Cafeteria, and (ii) to
recommend, from a financial perspective, two potential Options.
1. Background
1.1 The property at 2020 Lambs Road, known as the former Boys Training School and
WWII Prisoner of War Camp (Camp 30), was designated as a National Historic Site by
the Historic and Monuments Board of Canada in 2013. In 2018, Council designated the
property and the six buildings, including the Cafeteria building, under Section 29 of the
Ontario Heritage Act (OHA) (Designation By-law 2018-001) for its cultural and
architectural heritage significance.
Municipality of Clarington Page 3
Report PDS-039-25
1.2 A full chronology and links to previous reports addressing the cultural heritage value and
conservation of the Camp 30 property forms Attachment 3 to this Report.
1.3 At the September 16, 2024, Special General Government Committee meeting, PUB-
012-24 provided the following recommendation:
‘That Council consider the financial investment required to stabilize the cafeteria
building as part of future plans for the Jury Lands; and any decision be deferred to
October 28, 2024, Council Meeting, alongside the Parks, Recreation, and Culture
Master Plan (PRCMP).’
1.4 On October 28, 2024, Council received a Memo from the CAO’s Office and Public
Services (Memo 008-24) that outlined budget and cost considerations for the Cafeteria
Building at Camp 30. In consideration of the Memo, Council passed the following
Resolution #C-125-24:
1. That Staff be directed to undertake a Heritage Impact Assessment to provide
alternative options and costing to commemorate the building rather than full restoration,
including consulting with the Heritage Committee and Jury Lands Foundation; and,
2. That Staff report back to Council with the findings of the Heritage Impact Assessment
and provide recommendations.
1.5 Stantec was retained to complete an HIA to (i) evaluate possible alternatives to full
restoration of the Cafeteria building, and (ii) to develop costing for each alternative, in
accordance with Council’s direction.
1.6 The Draft HIA, prepared by Stantec, dated May 2025, forms Attachment 2 to this
report.
2. Heritage Impact Assessment
2.1 The HIA presents a range of alternatives to full restoration of the Cafeteria Building that
include:
Partial Retention in situ with Adaptive Re-use (active or passive)
Building Footprint delineation
Complete Demolition
Complete Demolition and New Construction of a sympathetic building
2.2 Section 7 of the HIA provides details and examples of each alternative.
Municipality of Clarington Page 4
Report PDS-039-25
2.3 Section 8 of the HIA provides a detailed assessment of the direct and indirect impacts
associated with each alternative. Where impacts are identified, mitigation measure are
required.
2.4 The HIA identifies a series of mitigation measures to manage adverse impacts to the
cultural heritage value of the site. These measures have been identified in recognition
that any adaptive reuse or new use would be related to a future municipal park. The
mitigation measures outlined in Table 1, below, would be considered part of the next
steps for each alternative.
Table 1 Mitigation for Each Alternative
Mitigation Measures Alternatives
Partial
retention in situ
Building
Footprint
Complete
Demolition
Demolition and
New Building
Documentation and Salvage
Plan
Conservation Plan
Design Guidelines
Commemoration Plan
Site Plan Controls
Archaeological Assessment
2.5 Section 9 of the HIA details each type of mitigation measure identified.
2.6 The scope of the HIA was to consider alternatives to full restoration. The HIA indicates
Partial Retention in situ with Adaptive Reuse (either active or passive options) is the
preferred heritage strategy, as Partial Retention has the lesser degree of impact
compared to the other alternatives. This is based on the alternatives considered, the
impact assessment, and mitigation measures outlined.
2.7 The HIA indicates the order of preference for the remaining alternatives from a heritage
conservation perspective, should the preferred strategy not be selected. The order of
preference is identified as follows: Footprint delineation, Complete demolition and
construction of a new, sympathetic building, and Complete demolition.
2.8 Council’s direction included the estimation of costing for the considered alternatives. A
companion document was developed by Stantec’s estimator team after the HIA was
completed to objectively consider the alternative approaches to heritage conservation.
2.9 The costing forms are provided in Attachment 4 of this report and in Appendix C of the
HIA. The document provides high-level estimates for certain costs related to abatement,
Municipality of Clarington Page 5
Report PDS-039-25
professional fees, alteration, demolition, and construction that would be associated with
each alternative.
2.10 The estimate does not include costs of commemorative elements due to their varying
nature, the specifics of which would be determined through a commemoration plan
undertaken as part of the mitigation measures outlined above. Ongoing maintenance
and management of the building and property are also not included in the costing.
3. Consultation
Clarington Heritage Committee
3.1 Stantec attended the May 20, 2025, Clarington Heritage Committee meeting to present
the draft HIA. Members of the Heritage Committee expressed frustration that there was
insufficient time to properly review the draft HIA, consider the alternatives, and provide
an informed recommendation to Council, prior to Council’s consideration of the matter in
June.
3.2 At its meeting, the Committee made two motions generally indicating the following
(pending the release of the draft meeting minutes):
That the Committee does not support two of the options presented, being Option 3
(Footprint Delineation) and Option 4 (Complete Demolition), and recommends to
Council that those options not be considered.
That the Committee recommends that Council continues to consider the full restoration
alternative.
The draft minutes will be available as part of June 17 Heritage Committee Agenda and
June 23 Council agenda.
Jury Lands Foundation
3.3 Stantec presented the draft HIA to the Jury Lands Foundation (JLF) at its meeting on
May 28, 2025.
3.4 Members expressed frustration at the condensed project timeframe to receive , review,
and respond to the presented alternatives to full restoration. Members also requested to
receive the costing for the alternatives to help inform fundraising considerations. Stantec
and staff advised the costing exercise was still in progress at the time of the meeting.
Municipality of Clarington Page 6
Report PDS-039-25
4. Discussion
Cultural Heritage
4.1 Staff is satisfied the HIA, prepared by Stantec, dated June 2025, considers an
appropriate range of possible alternatives to full restoration for the conservation and
commemoration of the Cafeteria building, in accordance with Council’s direction.
Costing
4.2 The preferred heritage conservation strategy for Partial Retention in situ would require
work to stabilize the structure before in the interim period before an adaptive reuse is
realized. Such stabilization costs prior to adaptive reuse relate to cleaning and repairs
for damage and vandalism to retain and stabilize walls and maintaining security
measures. These estimated costs have been included in the costing document prepared
by Stantec as they apply to Partial Retention (Options 1, 2), as well as Footprint
Delineation (Option 3) (Attachment 4).
4.3 Additional costs associated with commemorative elements to accompany the selected
alternative would be determined upon the completion of the commemoration plan
required as part of the mitigation measures discussed above.
4.4 There would also be ongoing maintenance costs associated with the management of
the municipal asset, following stabilization and adaptive reuse. These estimated costs
are not included in the attached costing document and would vary depending on which
alternative is being considered.
Next Steps
4.5 There are a series of next steps and processes to consider, depending on the
alternative selected by Council. These may include but are not limited to:
An amendment to the Clarington Official Plan; Special Policy Area F – Camp 30
(Official Plan Amendment 121) to address policies requiring the Cafeteria building to
be retained and restored;
A Heritage Alteration Permit process to facilitate proposed alternations/demolition;
Reports and studies associated with the mitigation measures identified , including a
commemoration plan; and
Associated updates to the property’s Designation By-law and National Historic
statement of heritage significance following any changes to the Cafeteria building.
Municipality of Clarington Page 7
Report PDS-039-25
4.6 The HIA recommends that Council consider the future intent of the broader Camp 30
campus in its consideration of the alternatives for the Cafeteria building. This approach
would acknowledge the Cafeteria as one element of the Camp 30 cultural heritage
landscape. To this end, staff notes there are ongoing OLT Planning Act and Ontario
Heritage Act appeals associated with the balance of the designated Camp 30 site.
5. Financial Considerations
5.1 Restoration of the Cafeteria building would not be eligible for Development Charges
(DCs) as it is not planned for use in an eligible category. Cultural heritage buildings are
ineligible for development charges.
5.2 Similarly, Community Benefit Charges (CBCs) may only be used for growth related
capital investments. At this time there are no plans for use of the building which would
tie its restoration to growth needs; therefore CBCs cannot be used to fund this project.
5.3 Debt financing is not recommended for stabilization costs as the lifespan of the
remediation work may be shorter than the long-term debt; the use of debt should only
be used for work that is permanent in nature. Further, the use of debt limits the
Municipality’s ability to use debt for other asset management or growth -related
infrastructure that may be in active use.
5.4 The use of the Miscellaneous Capital Reserve Fund is recommended for all options in
order to expedite the work on the Cafeteria building that Council approves. Projects that
would otherwise be funded by the reserve fund could be funded by de bentures or
increased contributions to the reserve funds to repay the utilized amount.
5.5 Staff have performed a financial analysis on debt financing this project assuming a ten -
year debenture. To minimize financing costs, Staff recommend that reserve funds b e
used and be replenished by debentures for future projects The following table outlines
the impact issuing debentures for each identified options, based on the high -level cost
estimate prepared by Stantec (Attachment 4).
Municipality of Clarington Page 8
Report PDS-039-25
Table 2: Impact of Debenturing Funds for Required Capital Work of Cafeteria Building
Debt Principal
Estimated
Interest Total Cost
Option 1 (Partial Retention in
situ Active) $7,720,000 $1,663,490 $9,383,490
Option 2 (Partial Retention in
situ Passive) $2,520,000 $543,005 $3,063,004
Option 3 (Footprint
Delineation) $1,580,000 $340,455 $1,920,455
Option 4
(Demolition) (Note *Cannot
be Debentured)
$1,440,000 $0 $1,440,000
Option 5 (Demolition and
New Building) $8,810,000 $1,898,361 $10,708,361
5.6 The lowest cost option is complete demolition. An additional $480,500 would facilitate
the footprint delineation, however there would be additional operating costs associated
with maintaining the footprint versus a complete demolition.
5.7 The above chart utilizes current indicative interest rates available from the Region of
Durham. These rates are subject to change based on the investment and interest rate
market and Bank of Canada overnight rate. The actual cost could vary from the above
because of interest rate fluctuations.
5.8 The use of reserve funds or debt financing for this project would mean that those
financing tools are not available for other projects that may be a higher priority for
Council as identified in the Parks, Recreation and Culture Master Plan, or other projects
identified through the capital program. The Municipality has an annual repayment limit
and reserve fund contributions have been recommended based on the asset
management plan requirements, therefore this project may result in other projects
having to be delayed if cash flows do not meet the anticipated requirements.
Municipality of Clarington Page 9
Report PDS-039-25
5.9 Reserve Funds would be used to finance this project; however, repayment to the
reserve funds would be required or future use of debentures could be utilized in future
projects. To minimize debt issuance costs, required debt would be issued in a larger
tranche rather than multiple issuances for smaller amounts.
5.10 Finally, the capital costs outlined in Table 2 represent additional needs in excess of the
approved 2025 capital budget, forecasted capital to 2027, the infrastructure funding gap
required to be addressed through the Asset Management Plan or the current operating
budgets
5.11 Staff note that in addition to the capital costs outlined, the project would require ongoing
operating costs to implement Council’s decision regarding the cafeteria and may include
a commemoration plan, and ongoing maintenance of the building and property. Costs
will be estimated once a direction is selected, and the work associated with the
identified mitigation measures is complete.
6. Strategic Plan
6.1 This matter is related to the identified priority under the Grow Responsibly pillar of the
Strategic Plan to ‘determine the future of the historic Camp 30 cafeteria building’.
7. Climate Change
Not Applicable.
8. Concurrence
N/A
9. Conclusion
9.1 On October 28, 2024, Council directed staff to retain a consultant to undertake an HIA
and costing for the Camp 30 - Cafeteria building to explore alternatives to full
restoration. The HIA has been prepared and presents a range of alternatives and
associated high level costing.
9.2 The HIA identifies Partial Retention in situ as the preferred cultural heritage alternative
to full restoration. This would include Option1 (active adaptive reuse) or Option 2
(passive adaptive reuse).
9.3 From a financial perspective, staff recommend Option 2 - Partial Retention or Option 3 -
Footprint Delineation would be more feasible given all other financial pressures.
Municipality of Clarington Page 10
Report PDS-039-25
9.4 Alternatives for the Cafeteria building are currently being considered as the only building
on the Camp 30 site that is under municipal ownership. However, determining a
conservation alternative for the Cafeteria building should consider its place in the
remainder of the designated Camp 30 campus and the future municipal park.
9.5 It is respectfully recommended that Council receive the HIA (Attachment 2) and Class
D Estimate Lambs Road Heritage Building (Attachment 4), and that Council provide
direction regarding the two Options presented.
Staff Contact: Lee Ann Reck, Deputy CAO Public Services; Trevor Pinn, Deputy CAO Finance
and Technology; Darryl Lyons, Deputy CAO Planning and Infrastructure Services and Rob
Maciver, Deputy CAO Legislative Services.
Attachments:
Attachment 1 – Memo re: Budget Decision on Cafeteria Building; October 28, 2024
Attachment 2 – Draft Heritage Impact Assessment, prepared by Stantec, dated June 2025
Attachment 3 – Chronology of Heritage Conservation for Camp 30
Attachment 4 – Costing – Class D Estimate, prepared by Stantec, dated June 2, 2025
Interested Parties:
The following interested parties will be notified of Council's decision:
Clarington Heritage Committee
Jury Lands Foundation
MEMO
The Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington, 40 Temperance Street, Bowmanville, ON L1C 3A6
1-800-563-1195 | Local: 905-623-3379 | info@clarington.net | www.clarington.net
If this information is required in an alternate format, please contact the
Accessibility Coordinator at 905-623-3379 ext. 2131.
Report To: Council
From: Lee-Ann Reck, Deputy CAO Public Services and
Mary-Anne Dempster, Chief Administrative Officer
Date: October 28, 2024
Memo #: Memo-008-24
File No.:
Re: Budget Decision on the Cafeteria Building at Camp 30
At the September 16, 2024, Special General Government Committee, PUB-017-24 provided
the following recommendation:
“That Council consider the financial investment required to stabilize the cafeteria building as
part of future plans for the Jury Lands; and any decision be deferred to October 28, 2024,
Council Meeting, alongside the Parks, Recreation, and Culture Master Plan (PRCMP).”
Staff have completed additional follow-up to provide Council information for consideration
when making this decision.
Staff met with consultants and have identified a risk for cost escalations on this
project. The proposed $4.5 million for the project of stabilization and abatement could
escalate given the uncertainty of actual state of the building, this is the amount
submitted for the grant application. This project would not see the building usable and
would only provide an opportunity to assess and provide a cost estimate for future
phases of the project (Stage 5 of the project outlined in the report).
In 2022, staff had an engineering assessment completed for the building that
provided a cost projection for full restoration of the building, in today’s numbers the
starting project budget for full restoration is estimated to be $21,855,424.
Financing options for the stabilization and restoration were outlined in the staff report
PUB-017-24.
Should Council direct staff to include the stabilization project in the 2025 capital
budget, a tax increase of approximately 6% would be required as all available
financing has been allocated to other Council priorities and asset management needs
per the asset management plan required under provincial legislation.
Attachment 1 to Report PDS-039-25
(Insert Reference Number if applicable) Page 2
The Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington, 40 Temperance Street, Bowmanville, ON L1C 3A6
1-800-563-1195 | Local: 905-623-3379 | info@clarington.net | www.clarington.net
Engagement results from the Parks, Recreation and Culture Master Plan identified
this project as ranking third in community priorities.
Additional risks to consider is the lack of identified future use (proposed stage 4 of the
project) and unidentified operating costs based on future use . Given the current lack
of business plan for operation, there is no current or future revenue associated with
this site. Once future use is identified, associated operating costs will be assessed
and brought back to Council to achieve the proposed service levels to the site. This
would lead to an increase in the operating budget in the appropriate year.
The Jury Lands Foundation has requested a Capital and Operating lease with the
Municipality. Once the expectations are known, fully vetted and costed, staff will
request an operating and capital budget to support the ongoing needs and
expectations for the site. Currently, staff do not have a budget and any work
completed at the site falls to the bottom line as an over-expenditure.
Staff identify the need to preserve the Heritage Significance of this site. As such, an
alternative approach Council may consider is to provide direction to staff to undertake
a Heritage Risk Assessment to provide alternative options and costing to
commemorate the building rather than full restoration.
Given the number of variables and unknowns with budget, anticipated cost escalations, the
lack of identified future use and operational planning costs, staff ’s advice is to proceed with
a Heritage Impact Assessment to provide alternative paths to commemorating the site.
_______________________
Lee-Ann Reck
Deputy CAO, Public Services
________________________
Mary-Anne Dempster
Chief Administrative Officer
Heritage Impact Assessment – 2020 Lambs Road,
Municipality of Clarington
Attachment 2 to Report PDS-039-25
Limitations and Sign-off
Executive Summary
▪
▪
Table of Contents
List of Tables
List of Figures
List of Photos
List of Plates
List of Appendices
Project Personnel
Acknowledgments
Acronyms / Abbreviations
1 Introduction to Property
1.1 Study Purpose
1.2 Background
2 Policy Analysis
2.1 Planning Act
2.2 Provincial Planning Statement
2.3 Durham Region Official Plan
2.4 Municipality of Clarington Official Plan
o
o
o
o
2.5 National Historic Site
2.6 The Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of
Historic Places in Canada
3 Background Research and Analysis
3.1 Introduction
3.2 Chronology
3.3 Cafeteria Building
4 Statement of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest
4.1 Introduction
4.2 Part IV Designation By-Law
4.2.1 Description of Property
4.2.2 Statement of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest
4.2.3 Description of Heritage Attributes
4.3 National Historic Site
4.3.1 Description of Historic Place
4.3.2 Heritage Value
4.3.3 Character-Defining Elements
4.4 Summary of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest
5 Assessment of Existing Condition
5.1 Introduction
5.2 Landscape Setting
5.3 Building Exterior
5.3.1 General Overview
5.3.2 Visual Condition
5.4 Supplementary Condition Reporting
6 Description of the Proposed Alteration
6.1 Proposed Undertaking
7 Conservation Alternatives
7.1 Introduction
7.2 Relocation
7.3 Partial Retention in Situ with Adaptive Reuse
7.3.1 Active Use
7.3.2 Passive Use
7.4 Building Footprint Delineation
7.5 Complete Demolition
7.6 Complete Demolition and Replacement with a New
Building
8 Impact of Development or Alteration on Heritage
Attributes
8.1 Provincial and Municipal Guidance
8.2 Assessment of Impacts to Identified Heritage Value
8.3 Summary of Impacts
9 Considered Alternatives and Mitigation
Strategies
9.1 Mitigation Measures
9.1.1 Documentation and Salvage
9.1.2 Conservation Plan
9.1.3 Design Guidelines
9.1.4 Commemoration Plan
9.1.5 Site Plan Controls
9.1.6 Archaeological Assessment
9.1.7 Commemoration Centre
9.1.8 Digital Resource
9.2 Discussion of Alternatives and Mitigation Measures
10 Summary
10.1 Preferred Strategy
10.1.1 Partial Retention In Situ with Adaptive Reuse
10.2 Preference of Additional Alternatives
10.2.1 Building Footprint
10.2.2 New Construction
10.2.3 Complete Demolition
11 Consultation
11.1 Municipal Consultation
11.1.1 Kick-off Meeting
11.1.2 Mid-Point Progress Check-in
11.1.3 Alternatives and Mitigation Measures
11.2 External Consultation
12 Conclusion and Next Steps
▪
▪
o
13 References
Appendices
Appendix A Heritage Impact Assessment Terms
of Reference
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Appendix B Special Policy Area F, Block Master
Plan
!!!
!
!
!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!!!!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!
!
!
!
!!!
!
!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
k
k
e
b
be
! ! ! ! !!
¬«
µ
b
¬«
k
Exhibit 'A' to the Municipality Of Clarington Official Plan Amendment No. _____ ,Block Master Plan Special Study Area F.
Appendix C Costing of Alternatives
i
Class D Estimate
Lambs Road Heritage Building
June 2, 2025
Prepared for:
Municipality of Clarington
Prepared by:
Stantec Consulting Ltd.
Don Ciccone, PMP
Tarang Kumar, PQS, CEP
PQS
Daniel Jovanoski, CEC
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 BASIS OF ESTIMATE ................................................................................................... 4
1.1 PURPOSE ...................................................................................................................... 4
1.2 PROJECT SCOPE ......................................................................................................... 4
1.3 METHODOLOGY ........................................................................................................... 5
1.4 CLASS OF ESTIMATE ................................................................................................... 5
1.5 UNIT RATES .................................................................................................................. 6
1.6 MARK-UPS & ALLOWANCES ....................................................................................... 6
1.6.1 Phasing Premium ........................................................................................... 6
1.6.2 General Requirements ................................................................................... 6
1.6.3 Fee................................................................................................................. 6
1.6.4 Contingency Allowance .................................................................................. 6
1.6.5 Professional Fees .......................................................................................... 6
1.6.6 Escalation ...................................................................................................... 6
1.6.7 Special Costs ................................................................................................. 7
1.7 ASSUMPTIONS, INCLUSIONS & EXCLUSIONS ........................................................... 7
1.7.1 General .......................................................................................................... 7
1.7.2 Civil/Structural/Architectural ........................................................................... 7
1.7.3 Mechanical ..................................................................................................... 7
1.7.4 Electrical ........................................................................................................ 7
1.7.5 Exclusions ...................................................................................................... 7
APPENDICES
............................................................................................................................. 9
Class D Estimate - Lambs Road Heritage Building Options 1 to 5
4
1.0 Basis of Estimate
1.1 Purpose
This Class 5 Rough Order of Magnitude estimate for the Camp 30 Cafeteria Heritage (the “Project”) is intended to
provide a realistic cost of construction, including direct and indirect costs.
1.2 Project Scope
There are 5 different options that are considered in the scope of the project and are listed below.
1. Retention of the main floor exterior brick walls with new building inside
· Existing brick exterior walls and red brick foundation walls (ground level to roofline) are in poor
condition and would require repair and stabilization.
· A new one storey building would be constructed within the retained perimeter walls (approx. 8,000
sq feet based on existing size).
· Potential uses could be something related to a small-scale community centre or park amenity
building, possibly including washrooms, meeting space, open recreation space.
2. Retention of the main floor brick walls as a ruin with open outdoor amenity space inside
· Same with Option 1, with repair and stabilization of the exterior brick walls and red brick
· No new enclosed building constructed in this option. Instead, the space within the retained walls
would be open-air (i.e. passive use)
3. Retention of exterior walls with supporting materials to create an approx. 2-foot-high knee-wall outlining the
footprint of the building
· No new building would be constructed. Demolition of most of the existing building, and minimal
salvage of a representative sample of materials (e.g. a few pallets of bricks for use in future
commemoration)
· Retention/construction of a low brick wall (less than 3 feet tall, capped with concrete) to show the
former footprint of the building.
4. Full demolition of the building and salvage of a representative sample of materials (e.g. a few pallets of
bricks)
· No new building being constructed
· High level cost for demolition, and salvage of a representative sample of materials (e.g. a few
pallets of bricks)
5. Full demolition of the existing building, and construction of a new building
· High level cost for demolition, and salvage of a representative sample of materials (e.g. a few
pallets of bricks)
5
· High level cost per square foot for a new one-storey building with flat roof and large windows.
· Use not known but likely like Option 1 (e.g. a small-scale community centre, museum, or park
amenity building, possibly including washrooms, meeting space, open recreation space)
Fig 1 – Picture of the Existing Building
1.3 Methodology
The estimate is based on our assessment of the information provided, measured quantities where possible and
competitive rates for the project type and geographical area. The estimate represents the fair market value effective on
the date estimated. The value is not representative of the low bid and assumes competitive bidding for all works.
General requirements and fee may vary from the estimated value depending on procurement methodology, phasing
and staging requirements, construction schedule and degree of self performed work by the General Contractor.
The estimate was prepared in a non-standard format for ease of quantity take-offs and grouping of work packages.
The summary of the estimate has generally been structured to align with the site requirements.
1.4 Class of Estimate
This estimate was completed at a Class 5 level where available information allowed. It is intended to provide a realistic
opinion of probable construction costs (OPCC) for direct and indirect costs. Further, allowances have been included
6
for some components or details that will be established in later stages. Any additional design changes will be captured
in the estimate for the subsequent design milestone.
This Class 5 estimate is considered to have an expected degree of accuracy of -30% and +50%.
1.5 Unit Rates
All rates are based on prevailing wages for unionized labor performing works during regular business hours. Rates
include the components of labor, equipment, material, and sub-contractor overhead and profit.
1.6 Mark-Ups & Allowances
The values in this section are typically calculated based on the cumulative sum of the previous items with the different
items considered listed below in 1.6.1 to 1.6.7.
1.6.1 Phasing Premium
A phasing premium of 5% of the direct construction cost has been included. This is for inefficiencies and additional
costs related to logistical constraints, staging of works and coordinating and phasing with passing rail, adjacent
projects, agencies, authorities and landowners.
1.6.2 General Requirements
General requirements have been included. This includes the General Contractor’s costs such as overheads, profit,
bonding, insurance, supervision, temporary facilities, utilities, general cleaning, traffic management, etc.
1.6.3 Fee
A General Contractor fee has been included at 8% of the of the total of direct construction cost plus item 1.6.1 and
1.6.2 above.
1.6.4 Contingency Allowance
Design contingency of 30% is recommended in the estimate value. It is expected that as the specifications and
design develops and becomes more detailed, additional items and costs may be added to the construction cost and
this value will decrease.
Construction contingency in the amount of 10% is recommended in the estimate value for construction unknowns
which could not be predicted, examples may include unforeseen ground conditions, utility conflicts or various items
listed in the exclusions.
1.6.5 Professional Fees
Professional fees are recommended at 10% in this estimate. This would typically cover consultants’ fees including for
design, engineering, contract administration, inspections, permitting, and on-site testing fees.
1.6.6 Escalation
Costs are based on 2024 Canadian dollars and the mid point of construction is anticipated to be in April 2029.
7
Escalation of 7.49% is recommended, this value was calculated by compounding a yearly escalation rate of 3.5%
over 2 years. This rate can be used to adjust the total escalation should the anticipated construction schedule
change. The above adjustments are based on historical references, however, there is no way to accurately predict
future escalation or market conditions.
1.6.7 Special Costs
An allowance for hazardous material abatement, Archaeology Stage 2 Study, and Heritage Study is included in the
estimate based on discussion with the Municipality.
1.7 Assumptions, Inclusions & Exclusions
The following are assumed, included or excluded in the estimate:
1.7.1 General
· General requirements and fees cover the General Contractor’s direct and indirect costs such as bonding,
insurance, supervision, temporary facilities, utilities, general cleaning, profits, etc.
· A phasing/loss of productivity factor has been included for staging of works and inefficiencies associated with
multiple mobilizations and protection of Heritage items during construction.
· To provide a greater level of detail, some estimate information and detail has been developed through
discussions with the design team and from similar historical projects and may not be readily apparent on
design documents.
1.7.2 Civil/Structural/Architectural
· Some structural steel elements, footings, foundations, slabs, walls sizes are assumed based on similar
historical projects.
· Finishes are assumed based on similar historical projects.
· Hard surfaces make up are assumed based on similar historical projects.
· Allowance for site grading is not included. There are some differential grades visible in the photos. It is
possible that certain extra costs maybe carried by bidders based on the selected option for additional backfill
if grade is to be brough up or disposal offsite if grade is to be lowered.
1.7.3 Mechanical
· Fire suppression systems is included.
· Site servicing by civil trade.
· Heat tracing by electrical trade.
· Generator or Temporary Generator is excluded from the estimate
· Snow melt systems are excluded.
1.7.4 Electrical
· Local utility companies to supply and install incoming primary feeders and transformers.
· Work will be completed in one mobilization.
· Network Equipment Cabinets are supplied and installed by Electrical Contractor. All other Network Electronics
and Equipment are supplied and installed by Owner, other than those specifically noted.
1.7.5 Exclusions
· Any fees associated with commemoration are excluded.
· Any additional agency or administrative costs.
8
· Any cost impacts associated with Tariffs
· Construction management fees.
· Snow melt system, generators.
· Land acquisition costs.
· Restoration of areas outside of site boundary or on municipal right of way.
· Utility costs for incoming connections (electrical, telecommunications, gas, water, sewer, etc.)
· Dewatering other than what is noted in estimate.
· Removal of any unforeseen underground obstructions.
· Financing costs.
· Costs for unusual delays, schedule impacts, additional measures, resourcing or cost impacts related to
equipment provided by others, inclement weather, unforeseen conditions or events.
· Environmental remediation including removal and disposal of contaminated materials.
· Designated materials remediation or disposal apart from the hazardous material allowance noted above
(asbestos, PCBs, etc.).
· Any directional boring for utilities.
9
Appendix A
Class D Estimate
Lambs Road Heritage Building
Class D Estimate
Lambs Road Heritage Building
Camp 30/Bowmanville, Ontario, Canada
Bowmanville, Ontario, Canada
No.DESCRIPTION OPTION 1 OPTION 2 OPTION 3 OPTION 4 OPTION 5
Partial
retention (with
new building
for active use)
Partial
retention (no
new
construction,
passive use)
Footprint
delineation
Complete
demolition
Complete
demolition and
replacement with
new sympathetic
building
1 A- SHELL 1,532,819 160,500 - - 2,048,645
2 B - INTERIORS
598,779 95,323 - - 864,599
3 C - SERVICES
758,366 110,000 110,000 110,000 750,430
4 D - DEMOLITION AND ALTERATIONS
516,880 576,180 383,780 320,180 260,880
Sub-Total Construction Cost 3,406,844 942,003 493,780 430,180 3,924,554
5 Phasing Premium 2.50%85,171 23,550 12,345 10,755 98,114
6 General Requirements 15.00%523,802 144,833 75,919 66,140 603,400
7 Fee 8.00%321,265 88,831 46,563 40,566 370,085
Total Construction Cost (Including General Requirements and Fees)4,337,083 1,199,217 628,607 547,641 4,996,153
8 Allowance for Abatement of Hazardous Material
250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000
9 Allowance for Archaeological Stage 2 Study
60,000 60,000 60,000 60,000 60,000
10 Allowance for Heritage Mitigation Study
100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000
Sub-Total Construction Cost 4,747,083 1,609,217 1,038,607 957,641 5,406,153
Professional Fees
11 Professional Fees 10.00%474,708 160,922 103,861 95,764 540,615
Sub-Total Construction Cost (Including Professional Fees)5,221,791 1,770,139 1,142,467 1,053,405 5,946,769
Contingencies & Allowances:
12 Design Contingency 30.00% 1,301,124.83 359,765.08 188,581.99 164,292.19 1,498,846.04
13 Construction Contingency 10.00%652,291.59 212,990.37 133,104.93 121,769.69 744,561.49
14 Escalation - to Mid Point of Construction from Estimating Date 7.49%537,453 175,492 109,671 100,332 613,478
Assumed Start: 1-Aug-2026
Midpoint 5-Apr-2027
Assumed Finish: 8-Dec-2027
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST (CAD)7,712,660 2,518,387 1,573,825 1,439,798 8,803,654
Checked By:
Date:June 2, 2025
Estimated By:RR, DJ, MQ, TK
DC
Date:
Estimated By:
Checked By:
ITEM NO.DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT RATE AMOUNT
A1 SUBSTRUCTURE
A11 Foundations
1 Concrete Pad Footings, 1500x500mm Deep 36 ea 1,346 48,456
Excavate & Disposed Offsite,1.2m Deep 65 m3 80 5,184
Backfill, Granular Material 38 m3 90 3,402
Concrete Supply and Place, 35 Mpa 27 m3 450 12,150
Rebar, 90 kg/m3 2,430 kg 4 9,720
Formwork 45 m2 400 18,000
2 Concrete Piers on Caissons, 600 mm Dia 36 no 758 27,305
Excavate & Disposed Offsite, m Deep - m3 80 -
Backfill, Imported Material 9 m3 90 824
Concrete Supply and Place 7 m3 450 3,206
Rebar, 150 kg/m3 1,069 kg 4 4,275
Formwork 48 m2 400 19,000
TOTAL A11 Foundations 743 m2 101.90 75,761
71,438
1 Excavation 372 m3 80 29,720
2 Backfill - Imported Material 186 m3 90 16,718
3 Allow for Dewatering 1 sum 25,000 25,000
TOTAL A12 Basement Excavation 372 m3 192.30 71,438
TOTAL A1 SUBSTRUCTURE 147,199
A2 STRUCTURE
A21 Lowest Floor Construction
1 Slab on Grade, 500 mm Thick - Tunnel Level 743 m2 762 566,419
Concrete Mud Slab, 100mm Thk, 20Mpa 74 m3 400 29,740
Concrete Supply and Place, 35 Mpa 372 m3 450 167,286
Rebar, 100 kg/m3 37,175 kg 4 148,699
Formwork 67 m2 400 26,800
Granular Fill - 300mm Thk 223 m3 80 17,844
Concrete Supply and Place, 35 Mpa - Second pour 112 m3 450 50,186
Finish Concrete Surface 743 m2 15 11,152
Form Key 134 m 25 3,350
Waterstop 134 m 100 13,400
Waterproof Membrane Underneath Slab 810 m2 75 60,787
Allowance for Construction & Control Joints 743 m2 50 37,175
TOTAL A21 Lowest Floor Construction 743 m2 761.83 566,419
Class D Estimate
Camp 30/Bowmanville, Ontario, Canada
Bowmanville, Ontario, Canada
Partial retention (with new building for active use)
RR, DJ, MQ, TK
DC
June 2, 2025
Date:
Estimated By:
Checked By:
ITEM NO.DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT RATE AMOUNT
Class D Estimate
Camp 30/Bowmanville, Ontario, Canada
Bowmanville, Ontario, Canada
Partial retention (with new building for active use)
RR, DJ, MQ, TK
DC
June 2, 2025
Date:
Estimated By:
Checked By:
ITEM NO.DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT RATE AMOUNT
Class D Estimate
Camp 30/Bowmanville, Ontario, Canada
Bowmanville, Ontario, Canada
Partial retention (with new building for active use)
RR, DJ, MQ, TK
DC
June 2, 2025
Date:
Estimated By:
Checked By:
ITEM NO.DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT RATE AMOUNT
Class D Estimate
Camp 30/Bowmanville, Ontario, Canada
Bowmanville, Ontario, Canada
Partial retention (with new building for active use)
RR, DJ, MQ, TK
DC
June 2, 2025
Date:
Estimated By:
Checked By:
ITEM NO.DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT RATE AMOUNT
Class D Estimate
Camp 30/Bowmanville, Ontario, Canada
Bowmanville, Ontario, Canada
Partial retention (with new building for active use)
RR, DJ, MQ, TK
DC
June 2, 2025
Date:
Estimated By:
Checked By:
ITEM NO.DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT RATE AMOUNT
Class D Estimate
Camp 30/Bowmanville, Ontario, Canada
Bowmanville, Ontario, Canada
Partial retention (with new building for active use)
RR, DJ, MQ, TK
DC
June 2, 2025
Date:
Estimated By:
Checked By:
ITEM NO.DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT RATE AMOUNT
A33 Windows & Entrances
1 Curtain Wall 15 m2 2,700 40,500
5 E.O. Exterior Hollow Metal - Double Door 15 no 5,000 75,000
6 E.O. Exterior Hollow Metal - Single Door 15 no 3,000 45,000
TOTAL A33 Windows & Entrances 15 m2 10,700.00 160,500
TOTAL A3 EXTERIOR ENCLOSURE 160,500
TOTAL A SHELL 160,500
B23 Wall Finishes
1 Painted Wall, PT 440 m2 160 70,323
2 Allowance for Misc. Painting 1 ls 25,000 25,000
TOTAL B23 Wall Finishes 440 m2 216.88 95,323
TOTAL B INTERIORS 95,323
C1 MECHANICAL
1 Make Safe For Demo 1 ls 50,000 50,000
TOTAL C1 Mechanical 743 m2 67.29 50,000
TOTAL C1 MECHANICAL 50,000
C2 ELECTRICAL
C21 Service & Distribution
Distribution
1 Make Safe For Demo 1 ls 60,000 60,000
TOTAL C2 Electrical 743 m2 80.75 60,000
Option 2 - Partial retention (no new construction, passive use)
Class D Estimate June 2, 2025
Camp 30/Bowmanville, Ontario, Canada RR, DJ, MQ, TK
Bowmanville, Ontario, Canada DC
Date:
Estimated By:
Checked By:
ITEM NO.DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT RATE AMOUNT
Option 2 - Partial retention (no new construction, passive use)
Class D Estimate June 2, 2025
Camp 30/Bowmanville, Ontario, Canada RR, DJ, MQ, TK
Bowmanville, Ontario, Canada DC
Date:
Estimated By:
Checked By:
ITEM NO.DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT RATE AMOUNT
B23 Wall Finishes
1 Exposed Wall with Painted Finish, EXP Excluded
2 Allowance for Misc. Painting Excluded
TOTAL B23 Wall Finishes - m2 - -
TOTAL B2 FINISHES 0
TOTAL B INTERIORS 0
C1 MECHANICAL
1 Make Safe For Demo 1 ls 50,000 50,000
TOTAL C1 Mechanical 743 m2 67.29 50,000
TOTAL C1 MECHANICAL 50,000
C2 ELECTRICAL
C21 Service & Distribution
1 Make Safe For Demo 1 ls 60,000 60,000
TOTAL C2 Electrical 743 m2 80.75 60,000
TOTAL C2 ELECTRICAL 60,000
TOTAL C SERVICES 110,000
NET BUILDING COST (EXCLUDING SITE)110,000
D1 SITE WORK
D11 Site Development
Allowance for Removal of Existing Utilities (Power, Water, Sanitary)743 m2 100 74,300
TOTAL D11 Site Development 743 m2 100.00 74,300
Footprint delineation
Class D Estimate June 2, 2025
Camp 30/Bowmanville, Ontario, Canada RR, DJ, MQ, TK
Bowmanville, Ontario, Canada DC
Date:
Estimated By:
Checked By:
ITEM NO.DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT RATE AMOUNT
Footprint delineation
Class D Estimate June 2, 2025
Camp 30/Bowmanville, Ontario, Canada RR, DJ, MQ, TK
Bowmanville, Ontario, Canada DC
Date:
Estimated By:
Checked By:
ITEM NO.DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT RATE AMOUNT
C1 MECHANICAL
1 Make Safe For Demo 1 ls 50,000 50,000
TOTAL C1 Mechanical 743 m2 67.29 50,000
TOTAL C1 MECHANICAL 50,000
C2 ELECTRICAL
C21 Service & Distribution
Distribution
1 Make Safe For Demo 1 ls 60,000 60,000
TOTAL C2 Electrical 743 m2 80.75 60,000
TOTAL C2 ELECTRICAL 60,000
TOTAL C SERVICES 110,000
NET BUILDING COST (EXCLUDING SITE)110,000
D1 SITE WORK
D11 Site Development
Allowance for Removal of Existing Utilities (Power, Water, Sanitary)743 m2 100 74,300
TOTAL D11 Site Development m2 - 74,300
Option 4: Complete demolition
Class D Estimate June 2, 2025
Camp 30/Bowmanville, Ontario, Canada RR, DJ, MQ, TK
Bowmanville, Ontario, Canada DC
Date:
Estimated By:
Checked By:
ITEM NO.DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT RATE AMOUNT
Option 4: Complete demolition
Class D Estimate June 2, 2025
Camp 30/Bowmanville, Ontario, Canada RR, DJ, MQ, TK
Bowmanville, Ontario, Canada DC
Date:
Estimated By:
Checked By:
Option 5: Complete demolition and replacement with new sympathetic building
ITEM NO.DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT RATE AMOUNT
Station Bldg 743 m2
level 1 743 per 134
A1 SUBSTRUCTURE
A11 Foundations
1 Strip Footings, 500x300mm Deep 134 m 330 44,280
Excavate & Disposed Offsite,1.2m Deep 80 m3 80 6,432
Backfill, Granular Material 60 m3 90 5,427
Concrete Supply and Place, 35 Mpa 20 m3 450 9,045
Rebar, 90 kg/m3 1,809 kg 4 7,236
Formwork 40 m2 400 16,140
2 Concrete Pad Footings, 1500x500mm Deep 36 ea 1,346 48,456
Excavate & Disposed Offsite,1.2m Deep 65 m3 80 5,184
Backfill, Granular Material 38 m3 90 3,402
Concrete Supply and Place, 35 Mpa 27 m3 450 12,150
Rebar, 90 kg/m3 2,430 kg 4 9,720
Formwork 45 m2 400 18,000
3 Concrete Piers on Caissons, 600 mm Dia 36 no 758 27,305
Excavate & Disposed Offsite, m Deep - m3 80 -
Backfill, Imported Material 9 m3 90 824
7 m3 450 3,206
Rebar, 150 kg/m3 1,069 kg 4 4,275
Formwork 48 m2 400 19,000
4 Concrete Exterior Foundation Wall, 250mm Thick 121 m2 1,064 128,318
Concrete Supply and Place 30.2 m3 450 13,568
Rebar, 150 kg/m3 4,522.5 kg 4 18,090
Formwork 241.7 m2 400 96,660
5 Concrete Stub Columns, 800x700mm 36 ea 1,056 38,022
Concrete Supply and Place, 35 Mpa 12 m3 450 5,443
Rebar, 90 kg/m3 1,089 kg 4 4,355
Formwork 71 m2 400 28,224
5 Allow for Elevator Pit 2 sum 25,000 50,000
6 Caissons, Assume 762mm Dia x 10m Deep 36 no 8,500 306,000
TOTAL A11 Foundations 743 m2 864.58 642,381
A12 Basement Excavation 71,438
1 Bulk Excavation to Tunnel 372 m3 80 29,720
2 Backfill - Imported Material 186 m3 90 16,718
3 Allow for Dewatering 1 sum 25,000 25,000
TOTAL A12 Basement Excavation 372 m3 192.30 71,438
Class D Estimate June 2, 2025
Camp 30/Bowmanville, Ontario, Canada RR, DJ, MQ, TK
Bowmanville, Ontario, Canada DC
Date:
Estimated By:
Checked By:
Option 5: Complete demolition and replacement with new sympathetic building
ITEM NO.DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT RATE AMOUNT
Class D Estimate June 2, 2025
Camp 30/Bowmanville, Ontario, Canada RR, DJ, MQ, TK
Bowmanville, Ontario, Canada DC
Date:
Estimated By:
Checked By:
Option 5: Complete demolition and replacement with new sympathetic building
ITEM NO.DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT RATE AMOUNT
Class D Estimate June 2, 2025
Camp 30/Bowmanville, Ontario, Canada RR, DJ, MQ, TK
Bowmanville, Ontario, Canada DC
Date:
Estimated By:
Checked By:
Option 5: Complete demolition and replacement with new sympathetic building
ITEM NO.DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT RATE AMOUNT
Class D Estimate June 2, 2025
Camp 30/Bowmanville, Ontario, Canada RR, DJ, MQ, TK
Bowmanville, Ontario, Canada DC
Date:
Estimated By:
Checked By:
Option 5: Complete demolition and replacement with new sympathetic building
ITEM NO.DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT RATE AMOUNT
Class D Estimate June 2, 2025
Camp 30/Bowmanville, Ontario, Canada RR, DJ, MQ, TK
Bowmanville, Ontario, Canada DC
Date:
Estimated By:
Checked By:
Option 5: Complete demolition and replacement with new sympathetic building
ITEM NO.DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT RATE AMOUNT
Class D Estimate June 2, 2025
Camp 30/Bowmanville, Ontario, Canada RR, DJ, MQ, TK
Bowmanville, Ontario, Canada DC
Date:
Estimated By:
Checked By:
Option 5: Complete demolition and replacement with new sympathetic building
ITEM NO.DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT RATE AMOUNT
Class D Estimate June 2, 2025
Camp 30/Bowmanville, Ontario, Canada RR, DJ, MQ, TK
Bowmanville, Ontario, Canada DC
Appendix D Drawings
Camp 30/Bowmanville Boys School - Condition Survey and Mothballing Plan October 2014
Goldsmith Borgal & Company Ltd. Architects 33
Department of Provincial Secretary, James
Govan, Architect: Main Dining Room, Ground
Floor Plan, September 1, 1924
Camp 30/Bowmanville Boys School - Condition Survey and Mothballing Plan October 2014
Goldsmith Borgal & Company Ltd. Architects 34
Department of Public Works, George Williams, Chief Architect: Main
Dining Room, New Glass Screen in opening between Staff Dining Room
and Kitchen, January 5, 1949
Jury Lands (Camp 30) Chronology of Events Summary
Time Items Reports/Documents
Feb 2009 Property and all buildings added to the
Municipal Heritage Register
PSD-016-09, municipal
register.pdf
July, 2009 Council receives a petition with 800
signatures
Minutes
October, 2009 12 buildings were removed from the
Municipal Register, six remaining
buildings continue to be listed on the
Register
PSD-099-09, allows
demolition of some
bldgs.pdf
Sept 2011 Letter from owner endorsing National
designation
Letter
April 2013 Announcement of National designation
July 2014 Incorporation of Jury Lands
Foundation (JLF)
PSD-071-16, MOU for
Jury Lands.pdf
March 2015 Release of proposed Official Plan with
Special Policy Area
16.7 Special Policy Area
F - Camp 30 Clarington
Official Plan
October 2016 Official Plan, Special Policy Area F
ratified by Council
November 2017 Council designation by-law of property
under the Ontario Heritage Act,
including remaining six buildings, ring
road, and surrounding area
PSD-080-17, local
heritage designation.pdf
PSD-080-17, revised
schedule for
designation.pdf
By-law 2018-001
June 2019 Present Urban Design Master Plan
and Design Guidelines, prepared by
DTAH
PSD-029-19,
presentation of urban
design.pdf
November 2020 Updates on draft OPA 121, Council
acceptance of Urban Design Master
Plan and Design Guidelines
PSD-051-20, acceptance
of urban design.pdf
December 2021 Council adoption of OPA 121 which
replaces Special Policy Area F with
conditions for development, Legal
Agreement is updated
PDS-051-21, OPA 121
finalization by staff.pdf
April 2022 Kaitlin submitted applications for
Zoning amendment and Draft Plan of
Subdivision (ZBA2022-0007 & S-C-
2022-0005)
Public Meeting Report
June 8, 2023 Kaitlin submitted the Heritage Permit
Application to propose to demolish the
Triple Dorm Building
Attachment 3 to Report PDS-039-25
August 4, 2023 The Notice of complete application
was issued
September 19,
2023
The Heritage Permit Application was
reviewed and discussed in Heritage
Committee meeting. Committee
recommendation to Council
Draft meeting minutes as
attachment 5 to the
Report
October 23, 3023 Staff Report re: Heritage Permit
Application for Triple Dormitory
PDS-052-23
September 16,
2024
Staff Report re: Camp 30 Cafeteria
Building and Jury Lands Foundation
Grant
PUB-012-24
October 28, 2024 Memo to Council re: Budget Decision
on Cafeteria Building at Camp 30
Memo
Attachment: Stabilization
and Security Measures
Report - Cafeteria
Class D Estimate
Attachment 4 to Report PDS-039-25
Don Ciccone, PMP
Tarang Kumar, PQS, CEP
PQS
Daniel Jovanoski, CEC
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 Basis of Estimate
1.1 Purpose
1.2 Project Scope
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
1.3 Methodology
1.4 Class of Estimate
1.5 Unit Rates
1.6 Mark-Ups & Allowances
1.6.1 Phasing Premium
1.6.2 General Requirements
1.6.3 Fee
1.6.4 Contingency Allowance
1.6.5 Professional Fees
1.6.6 Escalation
1.6.7 Special Costs
1.7 Assumptions, Inclusions & Exclusions
1.7.1 General
•
•
•
1.7.2 Civil/Structural/Architectural
•
•
•
•
1.7.3 Mechanical
•
•
•
•
•
1.7.4 Electrical
•
•
•
1.7.5 Exclusions
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Appendix A
Class D Estimate
Lambs Road Heritage Building