PUB (MPI) 1-18 Reference: AI.8, Investment Portfolio …€¦ · · 2017-01-28PUB (MPI) 1-18 - 2 - Recommendations made by Aon (p.34 and p.35 of the March 2008 ALM report) The

August 4, 2010 Information Requests – Round 1

PUB (MPI) 1-18 - 1 -

PUB (MPI) 1-18 Reference: AI.8, Investment Portfolio

composition

(a) Please provide a table which summarizes each of the recommendations made by

AON relative to the Corporation's investment portfolio, the Corporation's response to

each recommendation, and the Corporation’s progress during 2009/10, 2010/11

(forecast) and 2011/12 (forecast) with implementation of the adopted

recommendations.

(b) Please re-file the schedule in AI.8 including 2009/10 and 2010/11.

(c) Please file an updated schedule to that provided in response to PUB/MPI I-7 (a) at

last year's GRA, compare that schedule to last year's filing and explain the

differences for each year.

(d) Please provide a listing of the Corporation's real estate investments for 2008/09,

2009/10, 2010/11, 2011/12 and 2012/13.

(e) Please provided the occupancy rate for Cityplace during 2009/10, the forecast

occupancy rate for 2010/11 and 2011/12 and indicate the actual and forecast net

operating results for rental and parking operations, including gross rental revenue,

parking revenue and operating expenses for each year. Please compare the rate of

return on this investment with the target rate for real estate investments.

(f) Please advise of the status of 1075 Portage Avenue and file any appraisals obtained

for that property.

RESPONSE:

(a) Refer to table below.


PUB (MPI) 1-18 - 2 -

Recommendations made by Aon (p.34 and p.35 of the March 2008 ALM report)

The Corporation’s response The Corporation’s progress to June 2009

The Corporation’s progress to June 2010

Expectations for 2011/12

Long-term Bonds versus Universe Bonds – either change allocation from universe bonds to long-term bonds or change the fixed income using a defined transition schedule.

The Corporation adopted a 10% allocation to long-term bonds and intends to fund that allocation as conditions in the capital markets become favourable.

The Corporation has started to increase the long-bond allocation.

The Corporation has continued to increase its allocation to long-bonds and had a 6.6% allocation at May 31, 2010.

The Corporation expects to have an allocation of 8% to long bonds in 2011/12

Illiquid Asset Classes (real estate, private equity, infrastructure) –the corporation will be gaining significant exposure to illiquid asset classes, and it is unrealistic for some of the illiquid asset classes to increase by more than 2% per annum.

The Corporation anticipates that it will take several years to reach the normal policy weights for the alternative asset classes.

The Corporation has purchased the parking lots associated with Cityplace. The Corporation has developed a shortlist of Canadian real estate pooled fund managers. Research is currently being performed on private equity and infrastructure.

The Corporation contracted with an open ended pooled fund in June 2010 and made its first investment in July. The Corporation has hired a consultant to provide education and assistance with evaluating the infrastructure market.

The Corporation expects to have the following allocations to alternative asset classes in 2011/12: • real estate (10%), • infrastructure (2%), • private equity (0.3%).

Currency Hedging – hedge the foreign currency exposure for all asset classes that target a consistent absolute return (real estate and infrastructure).

The Corporation accepted this recommendation.

The mandate for real estate is Canadian and therefore does not need to be hedged. The Corporation does not have any assets in infrastructure to date.

There is no currency exposure associated with the current real estate investments. The Corporation has no investments in infrastructure to date.

The Corporation does not expect to make real estate investments outside of Canada. The Corporation will investigate the accounting and economic implications of hedging currency exposures related to infrastructure investments.

Currency Hedging – do not hedge the foreign currency exposure to U.S. public equity or private equity.

The Minister of Finance has agreed to allow the corporation to discontinue the foreign currency hedge for US equity investments.

The U.S. public equity is currently being hedged. The Corporation does not have any assets in foreign private equity.

The Corporation discontinued its currency hedge in May 2010.

The Corporation does not expect to hedge the currency exposure related to U.S. equities in 2011/12.

T-bills – add a level of cash in the asset allocation.

For operational purposes the Corporation has provided an allocation to cash of up to 3.0% in the Investment Policy Statement.

In the Investment Policy Statement, the minimum and maximum range for cash and short-term is 0% to 3%.

The Corporation continues to hold cash as necessary for day to day operations and investment purposes.

The Corporation expects to continue to hold cash as necessary for day to day operations and investment purposes.


PUB (MPI) 1-18 - 3 -

(b) Refer to the attachment.

(c) Refer to the attachment.

(d) Refer to table below.

in millions

Description $ Annual Total $

2008/09

None 0

2009/10

Cityplace parking lots 15.4 15.4

2010/11 General provision Cityplace parking lots

71.3

15.4 86.3 2011/12 General provision

Cityplace parking lots

15.4 214.2 2012/13 General provision

Cityplace parking lots

15.4 251.0

(e) Refer to attached Schedules 1-4.

The rate of return on the portion of the Cityplace property that is real estate

investments (the three external parkades) is 5.3%. This rate excludes any change in

the fair market value of the investment. The target rate for real estate investments

is 6.0%.

(f) The facility is currently being tendered for sale. A copy of our current appraisal is

attached.

August 4, 2010 PUB (MPI) 1 -18 (b) Attachment

1

Investment Allocation

Investment Investment IncomePortfolio Corporate Basic's

2009/10 @ Feb. 28/10 Total Share(in millions) (in thousands)

Short-term 92.9$ 33$ 29$ Long-term 1,711.3 92,598$ 80,925$ Equities 387.1 2,981$ 2,605$ Real Estate 15.2 670$ 586$ Infrastructure - -$ -$

96,282$ 84,145$

Basic % of Total 87.39%

Average Average Investment IncomeInvestment Effective Corporate Basic's

2010/11 Portfolio Rate Total Share(in millions) (in thousands)

Short-term 64.5$ 0.66% 298$ 265$ Long-term 1,725.8 4.06% 68,672$ 61,033$ Equities 405.8 6.14% 22,672$ 20,150$ Real Estate 86.3 6.00% 4,818$ 4,282$ Infrastructure - 7.00% -$ -$

Total return 96,460$ 85,730$




Short-term 61.0$ 2.44% 826$ 741$ Long-term 1,605.8 4.50% 61,534$ 55,234$ Equities 477.9 6.07% 26,767$ 24,027$ Real Estate 214.2 6.00% 12,549$ 11,264$ Infrastructure 21.3 7.00% 1,491$ 1,338$

Total return 103,167$ 92,605$


August 4, 2010 PUB (MPI) 1 -18 (b) Attachment

2



Short-term 60.3$ 3.19% 1,017$ 920$ Long-term 1,528.7 4.94% 55,822$ 50,497$ Equities 520.6 6.12% 29,212$ 26,425$ Real Estate 251.0 6.00% 14,911$ 13,489$ Infrastructure 89.3 7.00% 6,254$ 5,657$

Total return 107,216$ 96,988$




Short-term 60.1$ 4.13% 1,292$ 1,174$ Long-term 1,560.8 5.15% 57,582$ 52,313$ Equities 652.0 6.15% 31,250$ 28,390$ Real Estate 266.4 6.00% 15,756$ 14,314$ Infrastructure 137.6 7.00% 9,633$ 8,752$

Total return 115,513$ 104,943$




Short-term 60.4$ 4.69% 1,263$ 1,142$ Long-term 1,655.2 5.97% 61,666$ 55,781$ Equities 591.6 6.19% 33,350$ 30,167$ Real Estate 283.7 6.00% 17,019$ 15,395$ Infrastructure 146.4 7.00% 10,246$ 9,268$

Total return 123,544$ 111,754$


Note:Portfolio balances and effective rates represent averages. The calculatedcorporate total for investment income is based on monthly calculations.

August 4, 2010 PUB (MPI) 1-18 (c)Attachment

1

Forecast2010 GRA 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14

Investment Income:

Short Term Interest 3,267 4,802 4,279 610 906 1,510 1,989 2,363

Long Term Bond Income (1) 93,816 82,106 84,480 77,140 73,984 78,392 78,837 86,538

Equity Dividends (2) 9,390 10,374 9,976 16,662 19,061 20,141 22,049 24,295

Equity Gain/Loss 25,694 45,132 (80,405) 11,312 11,310 12,873 13,822 14,608

Realized gain (loss) on HFT bonds 6,541

Unrealized gain/loss on HFT bonds (5,533)

Sub Total 132,167 142,413 19,338 105,724 105,261 112,916 116,697 127,804

Income from New Asset Classes:

EAFE Dividends/Gains 1,574 4,683 4,412 4,692 5,000

Infrastructure Income - 585 1,984 3,381 4,785

Real Estate Income 1,440 3,130 5,607 8,086 10,558

Sub Total - - - 3,014 8,398 12,003 16,159 20,343

Management Fees (3,139) (3,338) (2,902) (2,285) (2,379) (2,589) (2,864) (3,155)

Pension Fund Transfer (8,603) (13,531) (11,804) (9,027) (9,642) (10,284) (10,958) (11,668)

Corporate Total 120,425 125,544 4,632 97,426 101,638 112,046 119,034 133,324

Basic's Share 104,016 108,763 3,695 84,152 88,337 97,916 104,768 118,017 % of Total 86.37% 86.63% 79.77% 86.38% 86.91% 87.39% 88.02% 88.52%

Yield Percentage:

Short Term 4.00% 4.14% 1.91% 0.44% 1.05% 2.37% 3.37% 4.30%Long Term 4.97% 480.00% 4.71% 3.05% 3.38% 4.25% 4.91% 5.22%Equities 8.14% 12.25% -18.50% 6.23% 6.23% 6.23% 6.23% 6.41%EAFE Equities 6.23% 6.23% 6.23% 6.23% 6.23%Real Estate 5.50% 6.00% 6.00% 6.00% 6.00%Infrastructure 7.00% 7.00% 7.00% 7.00%

2011 GRA Forecast2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14

Investment Income:

Short Term Interest 3,267 4,802 4,279 33 298 826 1,017 1,292

Long Term Bond Income (1) 93,816 82,106 84,480 88,943 79,714 73,418 68,490 71,040

Equity Dividends (2) 9,390 10,374 9,976 9,579 10,535 10,686 11,278 11,923

Equity Gain/Loss 25,694 45,132 (80,405) (5,332) 13,874 14,161 15,822 16,679

Realized gain (loss) on HFT bonds 6,541 2,863

Unrealized gain (loss) on HFT bonds (5,533) 14,576

Sub Total 132,167 142,413 19,338 110,662 104,421 99,091 96,607 100,934


EAFE Dividends/Gains - - 3,601 3,942 4,579

Infrastructure Income - - 1,491 6,254 9,633

Real Estate Income 670 4,818 12,549 14,911 15,756

Sub Total - - - 670 4,818 17,641 25,107 29,968

Management Fees (3,139) (3,338) (2,902) (2,715) (3,137) (3,281) (3,540) (3,721)

Pension Fund Transfer (8,603) (13,531) (11,804) (12,335) (9,642) (10,284) (10,958) (11,668)

Corporate Total 120,425 125,544 4,632 96,282 96,460 103,167 107,216 115,513

Basic's Share 104,016 108,763 3,695 84,145 85,730 92,605 96,988 104,943 % of Total 86.37% 86.63% 79.77% 87.39% 88.88% 89.76% 90.46% 90.85%

Yield Percentage:

Short Term 4.00% 4.14% 1.91% 0.04% 0.66% 2.44% 3.19% 4.13%Long Term 4.97% 4.80% 4.71% 5.36% 3.78% 4.22% 4.66% 4.87%Equities 8.14% 12.25% -18.50% 1.08% 6.14% 6.07% 6.12% 6.15%EAFE Equities - 5.54% 5.54% 5.54% 5.54%Real Estate 4.40% 5.75% 6.00% 6.00% 6.00%Infrastructure 6.75% 7.00% 7.00% 7.00%

Difference Forecast2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14

Investment Income:

Short Term Interest (577) (608) (684) (972) (1,071)

Long Term Bond Income (1) 11,803 5,730 (4,974) (10,347) (15,498)

Equity Dividends (2) (7,083) (8,526) (9,455) (10,771) (12,372)

Equity Gain/Loss (16,644) 2,564 1,288 2,000 2,071

Realized gain (loss) on HFT bonds 2,863 - - - -

Unrealized gain (loss) on HFT bonds 14,576 - - - -

Sub Total 4,938 (840) (13,825) (20,090) (26,870)


EAFE Dividends/Gains (1,574) (4,683) (811) (750) (421)

Infrastructure Income - (585) (493) 2,873 4,848

Real Estate Income (770) 1,688 6,942 6,825 5,198

Sub Total (2,344) (3,580) 5,638 8,948 9,625

Management Fees (430) (758) (692) (676) (566)

Pension Fund Transfer (3,308) - - - -

Corporate Total (1,144) (5,178) (8,879) (11,818) (17,811)

Basic's Share (7) (2,607) (5,311) (7,780) (13,074) % of Total 1.02% 1.96% 2.37% 2.45% 2.33%

(1) Includes bond gain (loss) on sale

(2) Includes foreign exchange gain (loss) on US equities, write-downs, and gain (loss) on Cdn and US equities

Corporate Investment Income For Fiscal years ending February 28/29

Actual Outlook

in $000s

Actual Outlook

in $000s

Actual Outlook

in $000s

August 4, 2010 PUB (MPI) 1-18 (e)Schedule 1 Attachment

Occupancy RateActual Forecast Forecast

as at Feb.28/2010 2010* 2011*

Total Gross Leasable Area (s.f.) 454,037 454,037 454,037 Less MPI portion 333,079 333,079 333,079 Adjusted GLA 120,958 120,958 120,958

Closing Vacancy (s.f.) 27,357 26,593 7,820

Closing Occupancy (s.f.) 93,601 94,365 113,138

Occupancy Rate (%) 77% 78% 94%

*based on calendar year

1


Actual Net Operating Results

Cityplace Building Operations

Cityplace Retail Cityplace Office Cityplace Parking GRAND TOTAL

Rental Revenue (net of MPI portion) 2,426,635.48 3,905,657.79 754,205.38 7,086,498.65

Operating Expenses 1,821,235.73 2,944,346.65 280,494.88 5,046,077.26 Depreciation Expense* 248,142.63 620,356.58 372,213.95 1,240,713.16

2,069,378.36 3,564,703.23 652,708.83 6,286,790.42

Net Operating Income 357,257.12 340,954.56 101,496.55 799,708.23

*based on allocation: 50% office30% parkade (20% 3rd & 4th flr & 10% basement)20% retail

External Parking Operations

TOTAL

Parking Revenue 1,617,857.58

Operating Expenses 762,119.65 Depreciation Expense 185,557.34

947,676.99

Net Operating Income 670,180.59

For the period May 1, 2009 to February 28, 2010

For the period May 1, 2009 to February 28, 2010

2


Net Operating Forecast


Cityplace Retail Cityplace Office

Cityplace Parking GRAND TOTAL

Rental Revenue (net of MPI portion) 3,133,168 5,270,146 937,291 9,340,605

Operating Expenses 2,370,600 4,070,269 371,535 6,812,404 Depreciation Expense* 297,771 744,428 446,657 1,488,856

2,668,371 4,814,697 818,192 8,301,260

Net Operating Income 464,797 455,449 119,099 1,039,345

*based on allocation: 50% office30% parkade (20% 3rd & 4th flr & 10% basement)20% retail


TOTAL

Parking Revenue 2,067,850

Operating Expenses 1,042,983 Depreciation Expense 222,668

1,265,651

Net Operating Income 802,199

Forecast for the period January 1, 2010 to December 31, 2010

Forecast for the periodJanuary 1, 2010 to December 31, 2010

3


Net Operating Forecast


Cityplace Retail Cityplace Office

Cityplace Parking GRAND TOTAL

Rental Revenue (net of MPI portion) 3,614,232 5,466,370 955,044.31 10,035,646

Operating Expenses 2,432,584 4,177,421 378,959.00 6,988,964 Depreciation Expense* 297,771 744,428 446,656.80 1,488,856

2,730,355 4,921,849 825,615.80 8,477,820

Net Operating Income 883,877 544,521 129,429 1,557,826

*based on allocation: 50% office30% parkade (20% 3rd & 4th flr & 10% basement)20% retail (10% fitness & 10% retail)


TOTAL

Parking Revenue 2,109,208

Operating Expenses 1,064,341 Depreciation Expense 222,668

1,287,009

Net Operating Income 822,199

Forecast for the period January 1, 2011 to December 31, 2011

Forecast for the periodJanuary 1, 2011 to December 31, 2011

4

Summary Appraisal Report

1075 Portage Avenue

Winnipeg, Manitoba

as of April 6, 2010

File No. 10-2298-10

Front Elevation of 1075 Portage Avenue

330 Portage Avenue, Suite 1000 Winnipeg, Manitoba

August 4, 2010 PUB (MPI) 1-18 (f) Attachment

330 Portage Avenue, Suite 1000 | Winnipeg, Manitoba | Phone: 668-2583

April 14, 2010

Mr. Ron Moscinski, RPA

Manitoba Public Insurance

711-234 Donald Street

Winnipeg, MB R3C 4A4

RE: File 10-2298-10 Summary Appraisal; 1075 Portage Avenue, Winnipeg, Manitoba

In accordance with your instructions we have inspected the above noted property, more fully

described elsewhere in this report, for the purpose of estimating its market value. Market Value being

the most probable price which a property should bring in a competitive and open market as of the

specified date under all conditions requisite to a fair sale, the buyer and seller each acting prudently

and knowledgeably, and assuming the price is not affected by undue stimulus. It is noted that while

the retaining wall is stated in the report that it should be replaced, determining the replacement cost

of the retaining wall was not derived. The value applicable to replacing this retaining wall will mitigate

the value derived in this report,

After consideration of the available information, it is our opinion the market value, as April 6, 2010, is:

Three Million Seven Hundred and Fifty Thousand Dollars ($3,750,000)

A description of the subject property, neighbourhood, and supporting data is provided in the attached

report. The appraisal has been prepared in conformity with the Canadian Uniform Standards of

Professional Appraisal Practice of the Appraisal Institute of Canada.

Respectfully submitted,

Original signed by David van der Vis

David van der Vis MBA, CCIM, AACI, P. App.


Table of Contents

S U M M A R Y O F I M P O R T A N T F A C T S A N D C O N C L U S I O N S I

I N T R O D U C T I O N 1 Property Address 1 Legal description 1 Purpose of the Appraisal 1 Function 1 Effective Date 1 Definition of Market Value 1 Property Rights Appraised 2 Exposure Time 2 Marketing Time 2 Scope of the Appraisal 3 Environmental Concerns 3 Current Ownership 4 Encumbrances 4 Sales History 4

P R O P E R T Y D E T A I L S 5 Site Description 5 Zoning 7 Assessment and Taxes 7 Description of Improvements 8 Estimate of Depreciation 10 Estimated Effective Age of the Improvements 10

M A R K E T O V E R V I E W 1 1 Manitoba Economy 11 City Of Winnipeg 12

H I G H E S T A N D B E S T U S E 1 8 Introduction 18 Conclusion 19

V A L U A T I O N A N D F I N A N C I A L A N A L Y S I S 2 0 Methodology 20 Estimate of Value by the Cost Approach 21 Estimate of Value by the Income Approach 22 Estimate of Value by the Direct Comparison Approach 28

C O M P A R A B L E P R O P E R T Y – R E T A I L / O F F I C E 2 8 Reconciliation of Value Estimates 31

APPENDICES Assumptions and Limiting Conditions Appendix 1 Certification Appendix 2 Photographs of Subject Property Appendix 3 Title, Tax , Assessment Appendix 4 Demographic Information Appendix 5 Building Sketch Plans Appendix 6


Executive Summary


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY i

S U M M A R Y O F I M P O R T A N T F A C T S A N D C O N C L U S I O N S

Address of Subject Property 1075 Portage Avenue, Winnipeg, Manitoba

Legal Description Lot 3, Plan 26601 Winnipeg Land Titles Office in RL

58/60 of Parish of St. James.

Purpose To estimate current market value.

Function To assist in deriving a Sale Price

Site Area 161,502 sq. ft., or 3.7 acres

Building Area 22,307 sq.ft. Lower Level Area

22,845 sq.ft. Plan Area

69,112 sq.ft. Gross Floor Area

Zoning C2 - Commercial Zone

Assessment (2009) Roll No. 13-200105 $2,549,000

Assessment (2010) Roll No. 13-200105 $4,897,000

Property Taxes (2009) Roll No. 13-200105 $117,217.44

Highest and Best Use Current Office Use

Date of Appraisal April 6, 2010

Estimates of Value:

Cost Approach Not applicable

Income Approach $3,800,000

Direct Comparison Approach $3,650,000

Final Value Conclusion $3,750,000


I N T R O D U C T I O N 1

I N T R O D U C T I O N

Property Address

1075 Portage Avenue, Winnipeg, Manitoba

Legal description

Lot 3, Plan 22601 Winnipeg Land Titles Office in RL 58/60 of Parish of St. James.

Purpose of the Appraisal

The purpose of this report is to estimate the current market value of the subject property.

Function

This report is to aid in establishing a Sale Price for the Subject Property.

Effective Date

April 6, 2010

Definition of Market Value

Market Value is defined as “The most probable price which a property should bring in a competitive

and open market as of the specified date under all conditions requisite to a fair sale, the buyer and

seller each acting prudently and knowledgeably, and assuming the price is not affected by undue

stimulus.”

Implicit in this definition are the consummation of a sale as of the specified date and the

passing of title from seller to buyer under conditions whereby:

buyer and seller are typically motivated;

both parties are well informed or well advised, and acting in what they consider their best

interests;

a reasonable time is allowed for exposure in the open market;

payment is made in terms of cash in Canadian dollars or in terms of financial arrangements

comparable thereto;

the price represents the normal consideration for the property sold unaffected by special or

creative financing or sales concessions granted by anyone associated with the sale.1

1 Source: 2010 Canadian Uniform Standards



Property Rights Appraised

The property rights appraised are those of the fee simple ownership.

It is held in perpetuity, carrying with it the right to sell, lease, or give it away, and is subject only to

restrictions held by the Crown i.e. taxation, expropriation, police power, and escheat. Partial or sub-

interests, such as leasehold, can be created by the fee simple owner, granting some of those rights to

another for a stated period under certain conditions.

Exposure Time

Reasonable exposure time is one of a series of conditions in most market value definitions. It may be

defined as follows: “The estimated length of time the property interest being appraised would have

been offered in the market prior to the hypothetical consummation of a sale at market value on the

effective date of the appraisal; a retrospective estimate based upon an analysis of past events

assuming a competitive and open market”.

Exposure time can vary for various types of real estate under different market conditions. The fact

that exposure time is always presumed to occur prior to the effective date of the appraisal is

substantiated by related facts in the appraisal e.g. the use of current cost information, the analysis of

historical sales information (i.e. sold after exposure and after completion of negotiations between the

seller and the buyer), and the analysis of future income expectancy estimated from the effective date

of the appraisal.

The estimate of the time period for reasonable exposure is not intended to be a prediction of a date of

sale, but instead an integral part of the analysis conducted during the appraisal assignment. The

estimate may be expressed as a range and can be based on statistical information, specific sales

analysis or interviews with market participants. Related information gathered through this process

can include the identification of typical buyers and sellers for the type of real estate involved, typical

equity investment levels, and financial particulars term. Our estimate of the probable exposure time

for the property is six to twelve months.

Marketing Time

Marketing time is an opinion of the amount of time it might take to sell a property interest in real

estate at the concluded market value level during the period immediately after the effective date of an

appraisal.2 A reasonable marketing time for the subject property is also estimated to be six to twelve

months.

2 Ibid.



Scope of the Appraisal

An interior and exterior inspection of the subject was made by David van der Vis MBA, CCIM, AACI,

P. App., on April 6, 2010. Photographs appended were also taken on April 6, 2010.

The Cost Approach, Income Approach, and Direct Comparison Approach, were investigated as to

their relevance to this assignment, including a review of market data necessary to properly apply

these approaches. In this regard the Income Approach and Direct Comparison Approach have been

applied and later reconciled to a final estimate of value.

Publications provided by the City of Winnipeg provided information on land use controls and property

tax information. Sources of market evidence included, as appropriate, the Winnipeg Real Estate

Board – including the MAAP program and mlxchange, the Winnipeg Land Titles Office, the Johnson

Market Report, as well as local real estate agents, assessors, and vendors and purchasers active in

the market. Status of Title to the property was obtained through the Manitoba Land Titles Office,

Winnipeg location.

We did not complete technical investigations such as: detailed inspections or engineering review of

the structure, roof, or mechanical systems; an environmental review of the property; a site or building

survey; investigations into the bearing qualities of the soils; or audits of financial and legal

arrangements.

The analysis set out in this report relied on written and verbal information obtained from a variety of

sources we considered reliable. Unless otherwise stated herein, we did not verify client-supplied

information, which we believe to be correct. The mandate for the appraisal did not require a report

prepared to the standard appropriate for court purposes or for arbitration, so we did not fully

document or confirm by reference to primary sources all information herein.

Environmental Concerns

The subject property has been used as Government Offices since 1954. “An Environmental Site

Study completed in 2004 identified asbestos wrapped pipe and asbestos contamination in the crawl

space area. The pipe insulation was considered to be in good condition and is labeled “ASBESTOS”.

The entry to the crawl space as a sign identifying the area as contaminated with asbestos and that

entry to the crawlspace is only permitted while using respirators and coveralls.

Work was completed in 2005 to remedy an area in the parking lot that was identified in the

environmental site assessment as being contaminated by petroleum hydrocarbons.”3

3 MPI 1075 Information Package, received by email in PDF format April 1, 2010.



Other than what is mentioned, the appraiser has no knowledge of the existence of contaminants on or

in the property unless otherwise stated. He is not, however, qualified to test such substances or

conditions. The presence of such substances, such as asbestos, urea formaldehyde foam insulation,

other similar hazardous substances, or environmental conditions, may affect the value of the

property. The value estimate therefore is predicated on the assumption that there is no such

condition on or in the property or in such proximity that would cause a loss in value. No responsibility

is assumed for any conditions, or any expertise or engineering knowledge required to discover them.

Because this appraisal is not intended to determine the presence or absence of environmental risk,

should more particulars or detail be required, a qualified environmental professional should be

consulted.

Current Ownership

The Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation is the registered owner on Certificate of Title Number

2080477 as registered on April 8, 2005.

Encumbrances

Registration No. Type From/By/To Consideration Registration Date 3111710 Caveat Zoning Agreement from the City of Winnipeg - 2005/03/31

This encumbrance is believed to be common to all forms of real estate. It is also believed this

encumbrance has no effect on the value, or marketability, of the subject property.

Sales History

The current owner purchased the property April 8, 2005 for a reported consideration of $1,700,000

and a sworn value of $2,250,000. The property transferred from Her Majesty the Queen (Manitoba)

to Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation. The transfer is deemed to be an unreliable transaction as

this transaction was from The Crown, to a Crown Corporation.


P R O P E R T Y D E T A I L S 5

P R O P E R T Y D E T A I L S

Site Description

The subject site consists of an irregular shaped lot with frontage along Portage Avenue of

approximately 47.0 feet on the south and flanking Dominion Street on the west approximately 456

feet (see figure 1 on the following page). The gross site area is approximately 161,502 square feet.

The subject building covers approximately 14.1% of the site with all parking located at the rear of the

building. Access to the site is from the public lane along the east side of the site and from Dominion

Street for vehicles and off Portage Avenue and Dominion Street for pedestrians.

The building is set back from Portage Avenue and the resulting front yard is somewhat park-like. A

ramp leads to the basement on the south side of the building and the retaining wall is in poor

condition, has been reinforced with structural steel bracing and the retaining wall should be replaced

(see photos in the addenda).

The site is surrounded by Portage Avenue and Commercial Development at the South, Dominion

Street Avenue at the west, Public Lane at the east and a parking lot and community churcg at the

north. All municipal services are available at the site.

Based upon the current zoning by-law the number of parking stalls needed for office space is one for

every 750 square feet and for call centers one for every 400 square feet. The subject site has

approximately 190 paved and electrified stalls which would meet the intensity of a call centre

development. There is a gravel surfaced portion at the northern extremity of the subject property

which provides approximately another 80 stalls.

Based upon the office occupancy the number of stalls required according to zoning is 93 stalls.

Based upon this it is estimated that the excess land could be as much as 60,000 square feet.



Figure 1: Site Plan



Zoning

Under a Zoning Agreement completed March 31, 2005, whereby “The Owner, or representative of the

Owner, has made application to have the land rezoned to a “C2” Commercial District; and The City

has agreed insofar as it lawfully can and may and subject to the provisions of The City of Winnipeg

Charter to rezone that land as requested subject to execution of this agreement as a condition of

enactment of the rezoning by-law.”4

The Commercial Community (C2) District is intended to accommodate more intensive commercial

sites that do not have a local or neighbourhood orientation. The district is intended to include

attractive commercial, institutional, recreational, and service facilities needed to support the

surrounding neighbourhoods and the broader community. The C2 Commercial Community Districts

are generally located along collector streets, at arterial/collector intersections, or along portions of

arterial streets with relatively shallow lots.

Bulk requirements are as follows:

Minimum/ Maximum Front Yard

Minimum Rear Yard

Minimum Interior Side Yard

Minimum Corner side Yard

Maximum Height of Building

Maximum Floor Area Ratio

0 feet / NA 25 feet 0 feet 25 feet 49 feet 3.0

Permitted uses are many and varied. The subject does not appear to meet the bulk regulations

outlined in the zoning bylaw. The reader is directed to City of Winnipeg Zoning By-law Number

200/2006, which includes a comprehensive list of permitted and conditional uses for this zoning

designation. Only a cursory review of zoning requirements has been performed as part of our

analysis and questions regarding bulk zoning requirements should be directed to the City.

Assessment and Taxes

The property is listed under the City of Winnipeg tax rolls: 13-200105.

Roll Number Category Assessed Value (2010) 2009 Taxes

13-200105 Other Property (Grant) $4,897,000 $117,217.44

4 Zoning Agreement (DAZ 255/2004); Section 420, The City of Winnipeg Charter, registered March 31, 2005.



Description of Improvements

The Subject Building, known formerly as the “Motor Vehicle Branch”, is a two storey building with

lower level; with associated areas as follows.

Lower Level 22,307 square feet

Plan Area 22,845 square feet

Gross Floor Area 69,112 square feet

The building was constructed in 1954. The building is a reinforced concrete framed building with

structural concrete floors and roof together with concrete exterior walls below grade. The roof

structure was available during inspection and the condition was noticed to be very good with what is

believed to be torched on asphalt roll, with upgraded insulation. The perimeter walls, that are

exposed above grade are predominantly window finished. While the windows are not believed to be

original, this appraiser is not aware of the details of when they were upgraded to the current level of

finish.

The building is accessible through a public entrance on the south wall near Dominion Street. There

was an entrance on the south and north sides, both near the east end of the building for staff access

and egress. In addition to these doors there is an emergency exit located on the north side of the

building near Dominion Street and two emergency doors on the east side, below grade; one in the

cafeteria and one adjacent to the cafeteria. There is a handicap entrance located in the southwest

corner of the building with access to an elevator for access to all floors.

Lower Level

The basement area is divided into a number of smaller office type rooms, a class room, mechanical

and electrical rooms and cafeteria. Most of the area is not utilized. The mechanical and electrical

rooms are located in the middle of the lower level, excluding the two boilers which are located in a

building extension on the northeast corner (see Basement Floor Plan in the Addenda) The

washrooms located in the lower level appear to be original in both toilet technology and wall hung

basins. The classroom and offices in the northwest area have newer interior improvements. There is

also a staff lounge area on the lower level with what appear to be a newer interior. The cafeteria

looks as if the improvements are original; The cafeteria is located at the east end of the of the lower

level with the eastern wall of the area finished in glass, with a view of a sloped grass area leading up

to the eastern portion the parking area. All ceilings in finished areas are suspended acoustic tile with

suspended fluorescent fixtures. Classroom and office areas have typical carpet flooring, hallways

and cafeteria have typical asphalt tile and the washrooms are finished with ceramic flooring.



Main Floor

The main floor is divided into two general areas the eastern and northern wings. The eastern wing is

divided into two general areas finished with cubicles overall with a half dozen private offices scattered

along the perimeter. The interior finish looks newer on the eastern portion of the main floor. The

northern wing is divided into smaller general areas and a number of private offices along both the

east and west walls where the windows are located. This area is dated in interior finish. There is an

ample lobby with staircase to both the lower level and second floor. The lobby is finished with ceiling

similar to other areas and ceramic (quarry) tile flooring. There is a security desk in the lobby area.

For layout see floor plans in the addenda.

Second Floor

The second floor is laid out and finished similar to the main floor. The northern wing is dated and the

eastern wing has newer areas. Most of the second floor is finished with cubicles, with only 10 private

offices. The floor covering is similar to other levels with office areas predominantly carpeted with

corridors and stairwells finished with more durable goods. Second floor has a washroom compliment

located middle of the eastern wing and finished similar to those on the lower level.

Exterior

The exterior improvements such as concrete stairs and ramps are all in reasonable condition except

for the retaining wall on the south side which guards the exit from the lower level in the southeast

corner. This wall will need replacement (see photos in addenda).

Mechanical and Electrical

Mechanical Systems include:

One electric hot water system

Two gas fired steam boilers

Four AC compressors (two rebuilt in 2005 and two in 2007)

Two hot water heaters

Four supply fans

Two evaporator condensers

Five exhaust fans

One small (five ton) AC unit

One natural gas fired emergency generator

DDC Controlled HVAC system

Handicapped access elevator

Freight elevator



Estimate of Depreciation

Actual Age, which is sometimes called historical, or chronological age, is the number of years that

have elapsed since construction was completed. This age classification is given the least recognition

in the appraisal process.

Economic Life is the period during which improvements to real estate contribute to property value.

Economic life and physical life can differ widely; typically, physical life is expected to be longer than

economic life. For example, buildings with varying degrees of physical integrity are ordinarily

replaced with new structures; however when some older properties are renovated or remodeled, their

economic life can exceed their physical life. Rehabilitation can extend a building’s physical life and

can have an effect on its remaining economic life.

Effective Age is the age based on the condition and use of a structure. A building’s effective age

might be less than its actual age if it has had above average maintenance, if it is of superior quality or

design, or if there is a scarcity of such buildings in the market.

Remaining Economic Life (REL) is the estimated period during which improvements continue to

contribute to overall property value. An appraiser estimates remaining economic life in part by

interpreting the attitudes and reactions of typical buyers of competitive properties. Emphasis must be

placed on location, building quality, leases and economic changes in the neighborhood.

Estimated Effective Age of the Improvements

Chronological Age 56 years

Effective Age 30 years

Economic Life 50 years

Remaining Economic Life 20 years


H I G H E S T A N D B E S T U S E 11

M A R K E T O V E R V I E W

Manitoba Economy

Statistics Canada estimated that Manitoba’s real GDP grew

by 2.0% in 2008, above the Canadian growth of 0.4%. In

March 2009, the Manitoba Bureau of Statistics estimated that

real GDP increased by 2.2% for 2008. This shows that

Manitoba’s GDP has exceeded Canada’s for the previous

three years.

In 2009, the Manitoba economy is expected to outperform all

of the other provinces and in 2010 the Manitoba economy

growth (2.3%) is expected to be slightly lower than the

Canadian average (2.5%).

In the first eleven months of 2009, employment increased 800, as compared to the 276,600 job

losses in other Canadian locations. In, 2008, employment increased 10,200 relative to 2007. Full-

time employment was up 2.1% while part-time employment increased 0.1%. As of April 1, 2009

Manitoba’s population stood at 1,221,964 a one year increase of 15,864 persons. The 1.3% increase

in Manitoba’s population was fourth best among provinces.

In the first three quarters of 2009, Manitoba’s cash receipts were unchanged with increased crop and

livestock receipts offsetting a decline in direct payment receipts. The decline in retail sales is led by

declines in gasoline (-14.7%), motor vehicle dealer (-8.8%) and furniture and electronics (-6.5%)

sales. Other stores (9.3%), pharmacies (7.5%) and department stores (5.6%) have the largest

increases. In, 2008 Manitoba retail sales increased 7.2% above the 3.4% national average increase

and third highest among provinces.

In the first nine months of 2009, the value of building permits in Manitoba decreased 24.1%, bettering

the national decrease of 37.5%. In 2008 housing starts decreased by 3.5%, to 5,537 units overall

with 4.3% decrease in single family with multiple family were down 1.8%. The building permit amount

has decreased by 10.8% in the first 10 months of 2009 with non-residential rising by 16.8% and

residential permits decreasing 23.1%.

In the first eight months of 2009, business bankruptcies decreased by 37.2% in Manitoba and

declined by 10.1% in Canada.

Source: Manitoba Finance – Manitoba Highlights December 31, 2009



City Of Winnipeg

Trend in 2009 (Published by Destination Winnipeg January 2010)

In the latest Metropolitan Outlook report for 2009, the Conference Board of Canada forecasts real

GDP growth in Winnipeg of 0.8%. Winnipeg continues to perform well economically and is ranked by

the Conference Board as second best among Canadian cities for GDP growth and the highest among

major centres (population over 500,000). Winnipeg is one of only a few Canadian (and North

American) cities to experience any overall growth in 2009. The Conference Board forecasts

Winnipeg’s GDP growth to improve in 2010 by 2.0% and3.3% in 2011.

During the third quarter of 2009, Winnipeg’s labour force grew by 1% over the same period last year

and employment remained stable. Winnipeg’s employment situation continues to surpass the national

average with an average unemployment rate of 5.1% in the third quarter compared with the national

average of 8.2%. In the third quarter, Winnipeg’s overall building permit values dropped by 20% from

the same period in 2008. Construction projects related to government, institutional and industrial

projects showed growth in building permits, but Winnipeg’s residential and commercial markets

continue to perform slower than recent years. The Conference Board forecasts overall new housing

starts in 2009 will grow marginally by 1.8% and by 2.4% in 2010.

The Winnipeg real estate market appears to be making a recovery as Winnipeg REALTORS®

reported third quarter home sales were almost on par with 2008 and for the first time in 2009, sales

and dollar volume in a single month exceeded the same period in the previous year. In September

2009, MLS sales grew 3% and dollar volume improved 11% over the 2008 records. The conversion of

listings to sales in 2009 are 67%, only a few percentage points off 2008. The average price of a

Winnipeg home improved to just under 2% from the previous quarter. Statistics Canada reported that

third quarter retail sales in Manitoba grew by 1% over the previous quarter. Preliminary records for

Manitoba’s retail sales in October 2009 were $1.3 billion, an increase of almost 4% from September.

The Conference Board, in their latest forecast report, projects annual retail sales in 2009 to decline by

2.6% in Manitoba and 2.3% in Winnipeg.

Property Location and Neighborhood Analysis

The subject property is located in the neighborhood commonly known as The West End. The West

End is a mostly residential area just west of Downtown Winnipeg. It is bordered by Route 62

(Osborne, Memorial, Colony, and Balmoral Streets) on the east and stretches as far west as St.

James Street, the boundary between the old City of Winnipeg and St. James-Assiniboia. The

southern boundary is the Assiniboine River and the northern boundary is Notre Dame Avenue. It

includes the neighborhoods of West Broadway, Armstrong's Point, Spence, Wolsely, St. Matthews,

Daniel McIntyre, Sargent Park, and Minto.



History

Development of the area as a working and middle class residential area began in the late 19th

century and continued through the 1920s until the area was completely built up. The area developed

rapidly due to its proximity to Downtown Winnipeg, and, unlike Winnipeg's North End, the mainline of

the Canadian Pacific Railway did not impose a physical barrier between the West End and

Downtown. This fact, while it enhanced the area's reputation, retarded the development of a strong

sense of community, and the West End is today much less well-known outside of Winnipeg than the

North End. The area was also well served by the city's street railway system with lines on Portage

Avenue, Sargent Avenue, Sherbrook Street, and Arlington Street. The industrial area located

adjacent to the railway spur between Wall and Erin Streets provided employment for many West End

residents.

The West End was considered Ward Two in the Old City of Winnipeg and was seen as the "swing

riding" between the affluent and conservative Ward One and overwhelmingly socialist Ward Three,

which comprised the North End and Elmwood.

The area began a steady decline in the years following World War II as many of the more affluent

families moved to Winnipeg's suburbs and much of the housing stock was converted to rooming

houses and became dilapidated. Since the 1970s, parts of the area, particularly the neighborhoods

east of Arlington Street have been marked by crime. The majority of the properties in these areas are

rentals with a transient population, and in the last decade prostitution has become a serious problem.

Poverty is a serious problem in this part of the West End. The West Broadway neighborhood is the

poorest in the entire City of Winnipeg with an average household income of $20,923, just 40% of the

average for the city, and a home ownership rate of only 6%.

In contrast, Wolsely, Sargent Park, and Minto have experienced somewhat of a renaissance in recent

years and are again seen as desirable residential locations. These areas have experienced rapid

increases in property values in the last decade; in many cases values have doubled, or even tripled.

Historic Armstrong's Point, with its curving, tree-lined streets, and early 20th century mansions, is one

of Winnipeg's most affluent neighborhoods, with an average household income in 2001 of $102,214.

Ironically, this neighborhood is located directly to the south of West Broadway; the contrast could not

be more extreme.

Amenities

The commercial area around Polo Park Shopping Centre has expanded rapidly beginning in the

1990s with the building of dozens of big-box retail outlets, restaurants, and a major hotel. It has now

supplanted Downtown Winnipeg as the city's main commercial area. The West End was home to the

Winnipeg Arena until is demolition in 2006 due to the construction of the MTS Centre.



Attractions in the area include, the University of Winnipeg, Vimy Ridge Memorial Park, Omand's

Creek and Park, Canad Inns Stadium, Westview Park, and the Sargent Park Recreation Complex, as

well as many houses, apartment buildings, schools, and an armory with significant architectural merit.

Portage Avenue is the site in the summer months of the "Sunday Night Cruise" by automobile

enthusiasts, which while delighting the participants, raises the ire of many West End residents due to

the noise, and the all too frequent practice of drag racing.

Figure 2: Neighborhood Map

Further Demographic Information is available in the addenda of this report.

Winnipeg Office Leasing & Vacancy

This is the analysis of approximately 17.5 million square feet of rentable office space. The inventory

consists of downtown and suburban office buildings, government, medical and other types of

buildings with above grade office space, but does not include office space available on a sublet basis.



YEAR END 2009 - OFFICE SPACE INVENTORY & VACANCY (HEADLEASE)

BLDG TYPE INVENTORY VACANCY %

DOWNTOWN

CLASS A 2,652,477 101,470 3.8

CLASS B 3,874,572 274,110 7.1

CLASS C 1,773,370 74,440 4.2

TOTAL A,B,C 8,300,419 450,020 5.4

CLASS D 1,001,001 56,916 5.7

GOVERNMENT 1,705,732 0 0

MEDICAL 473,126 53,658 11.3

MISCELLANEOUS 1,457,702 107,920 7.4

DOWNTOWN TOTAL 12,937,980 668,514 5.2

SUBURBAN

CLASS A 241,154 32,098 13.3

CLASS B 189,124 22,000 11.6

CLASS C 316,318 26,794 8.5

TOTAL A,B,C 746,596 80,892 10.8

GOVERNMENT 863,790 0 0

MEDICAL 490,440 12,231 2.5

MISCELLANEOUS 2,449,835 181,195 7.4

TOTAL SUBURBAN 4,550,661 274,318 6.0

TOTAL INVENTORY 17,488,641 942,832 5.4

YEAR END 2009 - OFFICE SPACE VACANCY & SUBLEASES

DOWNTOWN CLASS A, B, & C INVESTMENT PROPERTIES

BLDG

TYPE

INVENTORY VACANCY % SUBLEASES TOTAL

VACANCY

TOTAL

%

CLASS A 1,725,294 101,470 5.9 68,776 170,246 9.9

CLASS B 2,950,474 274,110 9.3 46,511 320,621 10.9

CLASS C 1,695,570 74,440 4.4 0 74,440 4.4

TOTAL

A, B, C

6,371,338

450,020

7.1

115,287

565,307

8.9



Winnipeg Downtown Office has maintained a consistent vacancy between 250,000 and 425,000 sq.

ft. for over the past decade. The total Class A-C vacancy increased in 2009 by 188,000 sq. ft. but

about ½ of the increase is attributable to the reclassification of the office inventory. The story is in the

Classes. Class B has returned to its former vacancy, while A and C classes had marginal changes.

YEAR END CLASS A TO C DOWNTOWN VACANCY SUMMARY IN SQUARE FEET

YEAR CLASS A CLASS B CLASS C TOTAL

2005 167,807 188,210 65,512 421,529

2006 179,549 161,750 42,236 383,535

2007 114,116 236,075 21,296 371,487

2008 133,867 97,009 31,177 262,053

2009 101,470 274,110 74,440 450,020

Class A vacancy rate decreased due to the major addition of the Manitoba Hydro building. The office

portion of the building is completely occupied by Hydro. The balance of the Class A market had a

modest decrease in its vacancies. Class B returned to its previous vacancy totals primarily because

of the reclassification of the office inventory.

YEAR END CLASS A TO C VACANCY RATE SUMMARY

YEAR CLASS A CLASS B CLASS C OVERALL

2005 8.4% 5.9% 5.3% 6.6%

2006 9.0% 5.1% 3.4% 6.0%

2007 5.7% 7.4% 1.7% 5.8%

2008 5.1% 3.0% 2.5% 3.7%

2009 3.8% 7.1% 4.2% 5.4%

Stable or stagnant (you decide) but never boring. The Class A - C office market takes 1 step forward

and then 1 step back. The market for the past decade has seen the vacancy rate hover in the 4 – 7 %

range. Always acceptable but never spectacular as evidenced by the 20 year gap between

construction of Class A office buildings in downtown Winnipeg.

2009 saw a step backward erasing the gains of the previous 3 years. It is an interesting phenomenon

that the construction of a Class A building has had no affect on the class A market but has and will

impact the Class B market. Having simply returned to the vacancies of 2007 is a small victory for the

class B buildings.



YEAR END CLASS A - C OFFICE VACANCY CHANGE

YEAR PREVIOUS VACANCY CURRENT VACANCY INCREASE DECREASE

2005 391,646 421,529 29,883

2006 383,535 37,994

2007 383,535 371,487 12,048

2008 371,487 262,053 109,434

2009 262,053 450,020 187,967

The 2009 leasing activity was the weakest in the past 6 years and these weren’t good years to start

with. It is worth noting that in spite of ho hum leasing results, the vacancy rates have been

respectable to good. Tenant retention and expansion has helped create the stability in this Market.

0

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

CLASS A - C LEASING SUMMARY

ANNUAL CLASS A - C LEASING SUMMARY IN SQUARE FEET

YEAR CLASS A CLASS B CLASS C TOTAL

2005 118,922 134,173 7,578 260,673

2006 80,798 88,154 21,637 190,589

2007 75,583 30,206 25,419 131,208

2008 44,767 209,671 5,580 260,018

2009 72,093 37,505 5,560 115,158



H I G H E S T A N D B E S T U S E

Introduction

Highest and Best Use is defined as the most profitable likely use to which a property can be legally

put. It is that use of land, which at the time of appraisal is most likely to produce the greatest net

return to the land over a given period of time, i.e. the legal use which will yield to the land the highest

present value.

Highest and Best Use has further been defined as follows:

“The reasonable and probable use that supports the highest value as defined as of the effective date

of appraisal.” Alternatively, the use from among reasonable and alternative legal uses, found to be

physically possible, appropriately supported, financially feasible, that results in the highest land

value.” 5 Criteria for determining the Highest and Best Use includes the following:

the use must be legal;

the use must be within the realm of probability, not speculative or conjectural;

demand for such use must exist;

the use must be profitable;

the use must provide the highest net return to the land; and,

the use must provide the maximum return for the longest possible time.

The concept of Highest and Best Use is fundamental to real property value. In one application of the

concept, a site is valued as though vacant and available for its highest and best use. In the other

application, the highest and best use of the property as improved is estimated. Thus, a site may have

one highest and best use as though vacant and another as presently improved. Existing

improvements have a value equal to the amount they contribute to the site or they may penalize value

by an amount equal to the cost to remove them from the site.

Existing improvements that do not develop the site to its highest and best use are worth less than

their reproduction or replacement cost. A new building that is poorly designed is worth less than its

reproduction cost due to the functional depreciation in its design. Thus, the improvement that

constitutes highest and best use is the one that adds the greatest value to the site.6

The single most important factor which influences any consideration of the most profitable likely use

to which a property can be put is the zoning as it exists or, in some instances, the feasibility or

possibility of rezoning to another or higher use.

5 Appraisal Institute of Canada “Basis of Real Estate Appraising”

6 Ibid.



Demographics

The neighborhood in which the subject is located has a lower average family income than the City of

Winnipeg. The neighborhood north of Portage Avenue (Minto) has a lower family income than the

neighborhood on the south side of Portage Avenue, (Wolsely). The study completed shows

projections for the neighborhood within a 1 kilometer circle will continue to decrease in population

over the next five years. This trend is similar to that of the 2 and 3 kilometer circles but the decrease

tends to be reduced as the circle gets larger.

The subject neighborhood (Minto) population is (2006) 13.6% Philippines decent compared with 5.9%

of the City of Winnipeg population. The neighborhood has seen improvement to the housing stock in

recent years. The continued decrease could very well be attributable to smaller family size and not

an increase of vacant properties. The ages of the neighborhood show the younger age groups have

higher percentages than City of Winnipeg and vice versa for the older age groups.

Conclusion

The subject is a government office building which has recently become surplus. The overall structure

is in good condition. There are short lived items regarding interior improvements, and according to

Manitoba Public Insurance staff the HVAC components are dated and could be replaced. However,

according to the site package distributed by Manitoba Public Insurance the 4 compressors for the air

conditioning for the complex have been rebuilt over the last four years. While there may be some

concerns with some of the building components these are not reflected in the expenses (utility costs)

of running the facility.

In the case of the subject property the buildings are in fair condition and although been declared

surplus, are still in use. There is sufficient serviced parking stalls to meet the most demanding office

occupancies. Office vacancy has been stable in recent years and can be anticipated to continue

along this road with the increasing population of The City of Winnipeg.

Parking Lots have been known as a resort where vacant land can be held with the income for parking

operations cover the holding costs of the land. There have been recent vacant parcels of larger size

selling the City. While the vacant land could be used for development in the area, the location away

from the Dominion Street entrance and available servicing would mitigate the value the property

would bring in the market place, in comparison to the comparable sales prices.

Therefore, the current use of the property, an office building with land for further development, is

considered its Highest and Best Use.

As vacant, the site would be used for similar development.


V A L U A T I O N A N D F I N A N C I A L A N A L Y S I S 20

V A L U A T I O N A N D F I N A N C I A L A N A L Y S I S

Methodology

There are three commonly used approaches taken to evaluating real property; the cost approach, the

income approach, and the direct comparison approach. Which of these is utilized in any particular

appraisal depends on the property type and the use of the appraisal as well as the quality and

quantity of data available for analysis.

Cost Approach

The cost approach is based on the understanding that there is a relationship between value and cost

in the minds of many individuals. The approach is applied by estimating the value of the site and

adding to it the depreciated value of improvements. The approach is particularly useful in evaluating

relatively new improvements or those not frequently traded, and it has less application for properties

with older buildings suffering from various forms of accrued depreciation.

Income Approach

The income approach measures the present worth of the future economic benefit of property

ownership. In its simplest approach it assumes a relationship between the current net income and

the value of the property. Its application involves a study of the actual and expected income from a

property both from a quantitative and qualitative perspective, analysis of reductions in that income,

such as anticipated vacancy, collection loss, operating expenses and long term maintenance, and the

factoring of the derived net income into a value estimate based upon the expectations of investors in

similar properties.

Direct Comparison Approach

The direct comparison approach involves a comparison of properties that have been listed for sale,

have sold, or have received offers to purchase in order to derive an estimate of the value of a subject

property. The validity of this approach is directly related to the number and comparability of

properties sold that can be related to the subject as well as the quality of data available with which to

conduct an adequate analysis.

Excess Vacant Land

Commercial vacant land along major thoroughfares has been trading $15-40 per square foot

depending on the nature of final occupancy and speed of development, with the higher end going ot

McDonalds or Shoppers Drug Mart developments. Residential areas around the subject have seen

infill lots sell $5-10 per square foot. Given the location of the excess land, away from Dominion Street

and away from Portage Avenue it is estimated the value of the excess land will be $10 per square

foot. This will be added to the values derived in The Income Approach and The Direct Comparison

Approach.



Estimate of Value by the Cost Approach

The Cost Approach assumes that a prudent purchaser will not pay more for a property than the cost

of replacing or reproducing it in its present condition, providing there are no costly delays or economic

factors which influence value. Inherent in this approach is the Principle of Substitution, which states

that when several similar or commensurate commodities, goods, or services are available, the one

with the lowest price attracts the greatest demand and widest distribution. It consists of four steps:

Estimate the land value as if vacant.

Estimate the building reproduction cost defined as the cost of creating an improvement

identical to the subject in utility, size, and material.

Estimate accrued depreciation from all causes and deduct this from the estimated

reproduction cost of the building.

Add the estimated vacant land value to the depreciated cost of the site improvements.

When dealing with older properties, including those remodelled, the cost approach is inherently weak.

Accurate construction details are often not available and older construction techniques and materials

are obsolete. Depreciation, which emanates from a number of causes, physical, functional, and

external, can be very difficult to determine in an older property. Additionally, purchasers of this type

of real estate are not thought to strongly consider this type of approach in determining the value of

properties they wish to acquire.

As the market does not relate depreciated cost to value for properties such as the subject, the Cost

Approach will not be utilized in this report.



Estimate of Value by the Income Approach

The Income Approach is a valuable tool for estimating the value of an income generating property.

The theory of this approach is that the value of a property is the present worth of the net income it will

produce during the remainder of its productive life.

The methodology behind the income approach is as follows:

Estimate the gross annual income potential of the property combining a study of market rents

with actual income from tenant leases;

Estimate and apply an allowance for vacancy and uncollected rents;

Estimate and subtract expenses that are the responsibility of the landlord to determine net

annual income;

Analyze and select an appropriate capitalization rate for application to the net annual income;

and,

Apply an appropriate technique to factor net income into an estimate of value.

The subject property will be disposed of vacant. It was found that properties sold with vacancy

problems were evaluated, either of, two different ways. Development of an income stream as a if full

and deducted from this the usual costs, such as vacancy allowance, vacancy hold and structural and

capitalized at a rate approximately twice the cap rate of a building that was in fact full. The other

method is to develop the income stream as in the first method and capitalize at the market rate. This

value would then be discounted using an appropriate rate and over the number of years it may take to

fill the property and applying the appropriate incentives to lease the property. It is believed the first

method would be the most reliable as it has market information to draw from and the subjective

estimates of discounting, time required and incentives will not affect the estimate of market value.

Income Analysis

The subject property consists of a two storey with lower level as described earlier in this report, and

having 69,112 square feet gross floor area. The building is currently owner occupied and will become

vacant on sale. This property is larger than a number of recent transactions however, the available

market information is listed below.

Market Rents No. Address Rent / sq.ft. Area (sf) Comments

1 Portage Ave.(200 Block) $14.25 38,682 0 Parking Stalls. $40 psf incentive. First 15 months rent free for a ten year term

2 Buffalo Place $12.00 15,600 45 Parking Stalls included. $30 psf incentive. 3 King Edward $8.50 4,600 Net Lease. 11 Parking Stalls Included. 4 Border $9.50 18,500 Parking is included



Rental rate 1 is in the Canwest Building. The space was for a professional firm. This lease was

completed late 2008. This building is far superior to the subject in both quality of improvement and

location. This deal though, portrays the incentives that are offered to attract tenants.

Rental rate 2 is a suburban office structure in the Fort Garry area. This lease was completed late

2008. This building is superior to the subject although the subject location is superior. This deal

portrays that incentives are also available to in the suburbs together with the free parking. Downtown

parking is made available but will not be included in the rental rate.

Rental rates 3 and 4 are asking rates on major thoroughfares for smaller space. The property on

King Edward is REIT owned and would accept an incentive to the tenant for the right tenant and term

of five years.

Discussion

The subject property is larger than all the comparable properties.

Comparable 1 has more amenities than the subject. This lease was in a newer building, situated on

the Inner City covered walkway and adjacent to a number of indoor parking areas.

Comparable 2 is very similar to the subject except for the size.

Comparable 3 & 4 are similar to the subject except for the size. The interior of both comparables are

dated. These interiors could be improved through incentives, as with the subject

Based on the information reviewed it is estimated that the subject property would rent for $10.00 per

square foot annually on an absolute net rental basis with no expenses other than the roof and

structure. The estimated annual income is calculated as follows:

69,112 square feet x $10.00/sq.ft. = $691,120

Normalized Vacancy

According to the end of 2009 Johnson Report, vacancies in the overall universe of office space in the

City of Winnipeg stood at 5.4%, up slightly from 3.7 at year end 2008. For Class C office space, the

overall vacancy for Winnipeg was reported at 4.2% for 2009 up from 2.5% in 2008. The five year

average for Class C office is reported at 3.4%.

The subject property’s location offers good exposure and adequate parking. The subject property

although dated has an above average parking compliment. The larger size would be more difficult to

rent and according realtors interviewed could take upward of two years to locate a tenant. The

building does lend to possible subdivision with the around the front lobby and access to the lower

level and second floor via either the stairwell or the elevator.



Given the location of the subject, together with age and amenities offered it would not be

unreasonable to apply a higher rate than the current vacancy rate, or 5.4%. Therefore, the vacancy

applicable to the subject property as at the effective date of appraisal is estimated to be 10%.

Operating Expenses

Operating expenses have been based on information provided by the owner and have been

reconstructed where necessary to provide an estimate of operations under a “typical” operating

scenario. Final conclusions reached within this report are based on the assumption that the

information provided by the owner is accurate and valid.

Vacancy Carry Expenses

In addition, the landlord would be responsible for utilities and the proportionate share of expenses

relating to periods of vacancy or collection difficulties, and this must be accounted for as well. Utility

costs during periods of vacancy would be expected, although at reduced consumption, but other

costs (e.g. Security, insurance, etc) would be incurred. The 2009 realty taxes amount to $1.70 per

square foot. Adding for minimal utilities, security and insurance the holding costs are estimated to be

$4.00 per square foot per annum and this amount would be considered reasonable to account for the

shortfall during periods of vacancy.

The annual shortfall allowance would therefore be calculated as follows:

69,112 sq. ft. x $4.00 = $276,448 @ 10.0% = $27,645

Structural Reserve

Normally leases on office space such as the subject are written on a “triple net” basis with the tenant

responsible for all utilities, insurance, realty tax, et cetera, in addition to the rental. Despite the

tenants’ responsibility, however, the landlord normally bears the cost for “structural repair” i.e.

maintenance and repair of the roof deck, exterior walls, floor, and foundation of the building, and an

allowance for this expense must be made in the income calculation. Information pertaining to this

requires the long-term analysis of property expenses relating to structural components of a building;

for example the roof, which is expected to last a minimum of 20 years, extendible through routine

maintenance and repair. Financial records over such an extended period are not normally available.

In general, allowances for structural repair are calculated at between $0.10 and $0.25 per square foot

annually applied to the plan area of the building, with most reserves allocated for roofing repair and

renewal.

The subject property, although older, appeared to be in good condition structurally including the roof

cover and well cared for and an allowance of $0.20 per square foot will be used as an allowance for

structural reserve. Calculated on an area of 69,112 square feet, the allowance is $13,822.



Calculation of Net Operating Income

Revenue $691,120

Vacancy 10.0% ($69,112)

Subtotal $622,008

Vacancy Costs 69,112 x $4.00 @ 10.0% ($27,645)

Structural Reserve 69,112 x $0.20 ($13,822)

Expense Subtotal ($41,467)

Net Operating Income $580,541

Capitalization

Capitalization is the process of converting income from a property into an expression of value. A

capitalization rate is a conversion factor, appropriate to the property being appraised that is applied to

the income stream to convert it into an indication of the market value. It is the rate, commensurate

with the risk presented, by which an income stream is discounted to a present worth.

In order to determine the most appropriate capitalization rate for the subject property, two methods of

capitalization rate selection are being explored.

1) Mortgage/Equity Method:

This method blends the mortgage capitalization rate with the equity capitalization rate. It is used

when the amount of the mortgage is unknown, because lenders will usually lend on a ratio of the

market value of the property that the appraiser estimates. The mortgage and equity rates are based

on what the market activities appear to indicate, and upon discussion with mortgage lending officers

with respect to rates, ratios and the types of properties to which they are extending mortgages.

A conventional mortgage of 65 percent of value would likely be attainable on the subject property with

an interest rate of 5.25 percent over a 20-year amortization. The lenders return on investment is

included within the mortgage constant from which monthly and annual mortgage payments are

calculated. A property of this type and size would typically appeal to a small investor who would

anticipate a return on investment today in the order of 8-12 percent. Therefore, using current typical

financing terms and an estimated return of 8 percent, a capitalization rate can be determined as

follows:

Mortgage: 65% x (.08715 AMC) = 5.66%

Equity: 35% x 10%= 3.5%

Overall Developed Capitalization Rate= 9.16% or 9.2%



2) Overall Market Rate

This method is the most direct of the different methods of estimating overall rates. An analysis of

comparable properties is made having similar investment features, expense ratios, financing

availability, and type of property. An overall capitalization rate is calculated by dividing the

appropriate net income by the sale price of the property. This overall rate does not explain the yield

or rate of return on the investment. It merely expresses the relationship between the sale price and

the net income at the date of sale.

Index No.

Address Sale Price Sale Date Gross Floor Area

Cap. Rate*

1 55 Donald Street $1,040,000 March/2008 26,430 17.0%

2 287 Broadway $2,215,000 March/2009 68,319 17.8%

3 286 Smith Street $1,200,000 March/2009 40,107 21.1%

4 260 St. Mary Avenue $1,676,000 May/2009 41,262 16.7%

Mean 18.1%

Capitalization rates for larger office buildings have been in the 7.5% to 9.5% range for properties

leased up and operating on a going concern. These sales were all of buildings with substantial, or

entire, vacancy. These buildings are all newer with the St. Mary property constructed in the 1970`s

and the balance constructed in the late 1950`s or early 1960`s. Single tenant buildings are typically

owner occupied and capitalization rates can be difficult to obtain for single tenant buildings. All of the

comparable properties have the capability to be multi tenant as is the case with the subject, if need

be.

As indicated in the forgoing chart the capitalization rates range from 13.7% to 21.1%. It is difficult to

obtain accurate information regarding the income profile of sold properties, particularly for properties

with vacancy problems. These sales do, however, provide an indication of the current range of

capitalization rates considered appropriate for the subject property. Given the subject’s condition and

its location, a capitalization rate near the mean of the indicated range would be considered

applicable. A capitalization rate of 18.0% is considered reasonable for the subject.



Discussions with financial institutions indicated they would not be interested in financing a property

that is totally vacant with typical mortgage product. Depending on the quality of covenant of the

owner may open the financing up to a term loan based upon the owner`s promise to pay and other

collateral that may be available. It is concluded that the mortgage equity method is not applicable in

this case and the market derived cap rate will be used. Therefore, in this case the income will be

capitalized at 18%.

Capitalization of Net Income

The two methods of capitalization rate selection explored indicated a rate of 8.0% by the

Mortgage/Equity Method and a rate of 8.4% by the Overall Market Method. The two methods

reasonably support one another and therefore, a rate of 8.25% will be utilized in the capitalization

analysis.

Net Operating Income / Rate = $580,541/ 18.0% = $3,225,227

Add Value per Excess Land 60,000 sf x $10 psf = 600,000

$3,825,227

Rounded to: $3,800,000

Estimate of Value by the Income Approach

Three Million Eight Hundred Thousand Dollars ($3,800,000)



Estimate of Value by the Direct Comparison Approach

The Direct Comparison Approach is the process in which a market value estimate is derived by

analyzing the market for similar properties and comparing these properties to the subject property. It

is the most common approach to value and may be used to estimate value by comparison, or in

conjunction with the Cost and Income Approaches.

Comparison is the basis of application of the Direct Comparison Approach because it requires the

comparing and rating of the subject property with other comparable properties for which market data

is shown. The direct comparison approach to value involves the use of sales data of all kinds in order

to arrive at an estimate of market value. In this approach, the similarities between the subject

property and other comparable properties are established and assessed.

Direct sales are good evidence of value because it represents the reactions of typical buyers. The

direct comparison approach is justified on the principle of substitution, which affirms that a prudent

purchaser will not pay more for a property than the price of an equally desirable substitute property

available under similar conditions.

The Direct Comparison Approach entails in one form or another, the adjustment of sales or other

sales of usually dissimilar but comparable properties towards a reasonable degree of identity with the

subject property. It is the most common approach to value and may be used to estimate value by

comparison, or in conjunction with the Cost and Income Approaches.

For purposes of estimating the value of the subject property by the Direct Comparison Approach,

sales of office properties in the Winnipeg marketplace were researched, with the results presented in

the following table.

C O M P A R A B L E P R O P E R T Y – O F F I C E

Sale Address Sale Price Sale Date Parcel Size

Age Gross

Floor Area

SP/SF Upper Floor

Area

Subject 1075 Portage Avenue n/a n/a 161,502 1954 69,112

1 286 Smith Street $ 1,200,000 Mar./2009 7,533 1,962 40,107 $29.92

2 260 St. Mary Avenue $ 1,676,000 May/2009 24,000 1,976 41,262 $40.62

3 55 Donald Street $ 1,040,000 Mar./2007 20,426 1,963 26,430 $39.35

4 287 Broadway $ 2,215,000 Mar.2009 13,042 1,957 68,319 $32.42



Analysis

The appraiser has searched the sales of office buildings in various locations throughout the City of

Winnipeg. Sales data on this type of building were limited and the appraiser has also reviewed

current listings in the marketplace. The comparables shown vary in age, size and parking

compliment, but were considered to give an indication of the current market for office space.

Typically, valuation of this type of building is carried out on a per square foot basis.

The sales that were uncovered were all relatively recent and had vacancy concerns. All of the sales

that were uncovered did not have the required on site parking to meet the one stall for every 750

square feet of office space, except for Sale Number 3. An adjustment was made to the sale prices by

determining the needed parking stalls to meet zoning requirements and coming up with a rental value

based a market parking rate for the stall. This is capitalized into a value and spread over the area of

the property.

Comparable No. 1 is a six storey building located downtown on the first block south of Portage

Avenue. The building had 4 of the 6 stories vacant at the time of the sale and henceforth lost another

floor on possession. The building was constructed in 1962 a similar circa to the subject. This building

is reinforced concrete construction. There is minimal on site parking at this building.

Comparable No.2 is a three storey building located downtown on the two blocks south of Portage

Avenue. The building was taken completely vacant at the time of the sale and on possession. The

building was constructed in 1976 a somewhat newer than the subject. This building is steel and

concrete construction. This property had enough room on site to meet 30 of the 45 required parking

stalls.

Comparable No. 3 is a five storey building located downtown one block south of Broadway. The

building had 3 of the 5 stories vacant on possession. The building was constructed in 1963 a similar

circa to the subject. This building is steel and concrete construction. This was the only property that

met the required parking to meet zoning requirements.

Comparable No. 4 is a six storey building located downtown on Broadway where it intersects with

Smith Street. The building had 3 of the 6 stories vacant at the time of the sale and henceforth lost

another floor shortly after possession. This building is steel and concrete construction. The building

was constructed in 1957 a similar circa to the subject. There is minimal parking at this building.

Sale Address Sale Price Sale Date SP/SF Upper Floor Area

Adjusted SP/SF

Subject 1075 Portage Avenue n/a n/a

1 286 Smith Street $ 1,200,000 Mar./2009 $29.92 $43.33

2 260 St. Mary Avenue $ 1,676,000 May/2009 $40.62 $45.93

3 55 Donald Street $ 1,040,000 Mar./2007 $39.35 $39.35

4 287 Broadway $ 2,215,000 Mar.2009 $32.42 $47.42



Based on gross floor area, the unadjusted sale prices range from $29.92 to $40.62 per square foot

with an average unit price of $35.58 per square foot. Based on gross floor area, the adjusted sale

prices range from $39.35 to $47.42 per square foot with an average unit price of $44.01 per square

foot. All of the buildings compared to the subject are similar in age but the property on St. Mary

Avenue. All of the comparable sales had less onsite parking than the subject but sale number 3

which met the zoning requirements. The shortage of onsite parking was the adjustment.

Given the age of the subject together with its condition and location it would not be unreasonable to

choose the mean of the adjusted unit sale prices. Therefore, the estimate of value for the subject

property is $44.01 per square foot. The estimate of value, based upon the Direct Comparison

Approach is:

69,112 square feet x $44.01 = $3,041,619

Add Value per Excess Land 60,000 sf x $10 psf = 600,000

$3,641,619

Rounded to: $3,650,000

Estimate of Value by the Direct Comparison Approach

Three Million Six Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($3,650,000)



Reconciliation of Value Estimates

Three approaches to value have been considered for the subject property and two applied as being

appropriate in its valuation:

Cost Approach Not applicable

Income Approach $3,800,000

Direct Comparison Approach $3,650,000

The cost approach is most accurate when valuing new properties or those under construction. The

cost approach was not utilized in this report due to the age of the improvements, the difficulty in

determining depreciation, and the failure of the market to recognize this as a valid approach in

determining the market value of this type of property.

The value estimate arrived at by the Income Approach was based on an analysis of the estimated

revenues and expenses for the subject property. The rents and operating expenses available in the

market place were analyzed and reflected back to the subject property. Capitalization rates were

considered using two methods, with the final value estimate being supported by both the mortgage

equity method and direct capitalization method. The mortgage equity method was not given any

weight in determining the Capitalization Rate. The final value estimate developed by the income

approach is supported by market data from other properties. The quantity and quality of data was

good and the resultant value is thought to provide an accurate indication of the value of the subject

property from the viewpoint of a typical investor.

The Direct Comparison Approach involved the analysis of the sales of five commercial properties.

This method is based on the principle of substitution and assumes that a prudent purchaser will not

pay more for a property than it would cost to buy an equally desirable substitute property, providing a

sufficient number of comparisons can be found. The validity of the direct comparison approach is

dependent upon the somewhat subjective nature of comparative analysis. However, this method is

simple and direct and approximates closely the actual behaviour of buyers and sellers in the

marketplace. All of the sales compared to the subject were experiencing various levels of vacancy on

the transaction. All but one of the sales did not have near the required onsite parking needed to meet

zoning requirements

The subject property is known in the market. The subject has a corner location superior to most of

the comparable sales. The land coverage is also somewhat lower than most the properties that were

compared. Both of these attributes would indicate the unit value of the subject should be somewhat

larger than the properties to which the subject property was compared. With both methods of

determining value having their merits the final estimate of value is estimated based on both with more

weight in the Income Approach and mitigated by the Direct Comparison Approach.



Considering the information and facts contained within this report, as well as the limited number of

good quality commercial properties available on the market, the estimate of market value for the

subject property, 1075 Portage Avenue, Winnipeg, Manitoba as at April 6, 2010, is reasonably

Three Million Seven Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars.

Final Estimate of Value

Three Million Seven Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($3,750,000)


Appendix 1

Assumptions and Limiting Conditions


A P P E N D I X I - A S S U M P T I O N S A N D L I M I T I N G C O N D I T I O N S 1

This appraisal has been prepared at the request of Mr. Ron Moscinski, of Manitoba Public

Insurance, for the purpose of estimating the market value of the subject property as at the date of

inspection. The function of the appraisal is to assist in setting a sale price for the subject property. It is

not reasonable for any other person to rely upon this appraisal without first obtaining written

authorization from the above-mentioned and the appraiser. There may be qualifications, assumptions or

limiting conditions in addition to those set out below relevant to that person’s identity or their intended

use.

The report is prepared on the assumption that no other person will rely on it for any other purpose and

that all liability to all such persons is denied.

Aside from the standard assumptions and limiting conditions that are a fundamental component of an

appraisal report as prescribed by the Canadian Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice

(CUSPAP), sometimes it is necessary to identify extraordinary limiting conditions utilized in the

appraisal.

Extraordinary Limiting Condition - Exclusion of a relevant valuation approach

The Cost Approach to Value, due to the inherent difficulties in estimating accrued depreciation in older

improvements, will not be employed in the analysis.

Also noted that while the retaining wall is stated in the report that it should be replaced, determining the

replacement cost of the retaining wall was not derived. The value applicable to replacing this retaining

wall will mitigate the value derived in this report,

While expert in appraisal matters, the author is not qualified and does not purport to give legal advice. It

is assumed that:

the legal description as furnished by the Land Titles Office is correct;

the title to the property is good and marketable;

there are no encroachments, encumbrances, restrictions, leases or covenants that would in any

way affect the valuation, except as expressly noted herein;

the existing use is a legally conforming use, which may be continued by any purchaser from the

existing owner; and

rights-of-way, easements or encroachments over other real property and leases or other

covenants noted herein are legally enforceable.

Because these assumptions have been made, no investigation, legal or otherwise, has been undertaken

which would verify these assumptions except as expressly noted herein.

The author is not a qualified surveyor. Sketches, drawings, diagrams, photographs, etc., are presented

in this report to assist the reader in visualizing the property.



The author is not qualified to give engineering advice. It is assumed that there are no patent or latent

defects in the subject improvements, that they are structurally sound and in need of no immediate

repairs unless expressly noted within this report. No soil tests have been done, nor have tests of

heating, plumbing, electrical, air conditioning, or other systems been undertaken. For the purpose of

this opinion, they are assumed to be in good working order.

We have not inspected woodwork or other parts of the structure, which are covered, unexposed, or

inaccessible, and we are therefore unable to report that such parts of the property are free of rot, insect

infestation, or other defects.

This report has been prepared on the assumption that the property complies with all requirements of

authorities having jurisdiction over environmental matters and that there are no objectionable materials

present. The value reported may not reflect the actual market value of the property should the property

be contaminated.

The appraiser is not qualified to comment on environmental issues that may affect the market value of

the property appraised, including but not limited to pollution or contamination of land, buildings, water,

groundwater or air. Unless expressly stated, the property is assumed to be free and clear of pollutants

and contaminants, including but not limited to moulds or mildews or the conditions that might give rise to

either, and in compliance with all regulatory environmental requirements, government or otherwise, and

free of any environmental condition, past, present, or future, that might affect the market value of the

property appraised. If the party relying in this report requires information about environmental issues

then that party is cautioned to retain an expert qualified in such issues. We expressly deny any legal

liability relating to the effect of environmental issues on the market value of the property appraised.

No investigation has been undertaken with the local zoning office, the fire department, the building

inspector, the health department or any other government regulatory agency unless such investigations

are expressly represented to have been made in this report. The subject property must comply with

such government regulations and, if it does not comply, its non-compliance may affect market value. To

be certain of compliance, further investigations may be necessary.

Market data has been obtained, in part, from documents at the land registry office, the local assessment

office, or as reported by the real estate board. As well as using such documented and generally reliable

evidence of market transaction, it was also necessary to rely on hearsay evidence.

Because market conditions, including economic, social and political factors, change rapidly and, on

occasion, without warning, the market value expressed as of the date of this appraisal cannot be relied

upon to estimate the market value as of any other date except with further advice of the appraiser.

The compensation for services rendered in this report does not include a fee for court preparation or

court appearance, which must be negotiated separately. Neither this nor any other of these limiting

conditions, however, is an attempt to limit the use that might be made of this report should it properly



become evidence in a judicial proceeding which will decide the use of the report which best serves the

administration of justice.

Possession of this report or a copy does not carry with it the right of publication. All copyright is

reserved to the author. The report is considered confidential between the author, client, and other

indicated users. It shall not be disclosed, quoted from, referred to in whole or in part, or published in any

manner, without the express written consent of the appraiser. The report is subject only to confidential

review by the Appraisal Institute of Canada as provided in the Code of Ethics, Standards of Professional

Conduct and Standards of Professional Practice of the Institute.


A P P E N D I X I I - C E R T I F I C A T I O N 1

Appendix 2

Certification by David van der Vis MBA, CCIM, AACI, P. App.


A P P E N D I X I I - C E R T I F I C A T I O N 2

I certify that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:

the statements of fact contained in this report are true and correct;

the reported analyses, opinions, conclusions are limited only by the reported assumptions and

limiting conditions, and are my personal, impartial, and unbiased professional analyses, opinions

and conclusions;

I have no present or prospective interest in the property that is the subject of this report, and no

personal interest or bias with respect to the parties involved;

I have no bias with respect to the property that is the subject of this report or to the parties

involved with this assignment;

my engagement in and compensation for this assignment were not contingent upon developing or

reporting predetermined results, the amount of the value estimate, or a conclusion favoring the

client;

my analyses, opinions, and conclusions were developed and this report has been prepared, in

conformity with the Canadian Uniform Standards;

I have the knowledge and experience to complete the assignment competently;

no one provided significant professional assistance to the person signing this report;

as of the date of this report, David van der Vis MBA, CCIM, AACI, P. App., has fulfilled the

requirements of The Appraisal Institute of Canada Mandatory Recertification Program for

designated members;

David van der Vis MBA, CCIM, AACI, P. App., personally inspected the subject property on April 6,

2010;

Final Estimate of Value

Having regard to all of the information contained in this report, it is our opinion that the estimate of

value for the subject property, 1075 Portage Avenue, Winnipeg, Manitoba, as at the effective date

of appraisal, April 6, 2010, subject to the conditions outlined in the report, is:

Three Million Seven Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($3,750,000)

Original signed by David van der Vis

__________________________

David van der Vis MBA, CCIM, AACI, P.App.

Signed and sealed this 14nd day of April 2010 in the City of Winnipeg, Province of Manitoba


Appendix 3

Photographs of Subject Property


1075 Portage Avenue Winnipeg, Manitoba

Subject from the Southwest

Subject from Southeast



East Wing from the Northeast

North Wing from the Northeast



View along West Wall of North Wing

View along North Wall of North Wing



View of Handicap Entrance

View of Roof East Wing



View of Retaining Wall in need of Replacement

View of Parking Area Northeast of Building



Typical Office Space








Mechanical Room

Mechanical Room



Cafeteria Area

Cafeteria Area



Boiler

Boiler Piping showing Asbestos Warning


Appendix 4

Title, Tax, and Assessment Information


STATEMENT DATE: MAY 15,2OOg

rNT IvlANffOBA PUBLIC INSURANCE CORPORATION

THE CITY OF WINNIPEG 2OO9 GRANT'IN-LIEUPROPERTY Tl\)( STATEMENT AND DEMAND

(FRANCAS AU VERSO)

ROLL NUMBER: 130200105002080477

LoE B lock P lan Par ish

3 26501 58 /50 ST 'JA

Inquir ies:Municipal Taxes 311or toll free 1-877-311'4974

School Division(2041775-0231

Iitle No.:Mortgage No.:Part of Lot

(1,656,850 x 0.025448)

mlrJXdFJ{*(.}=J

E

v

CITY OF WINNIPEG MUNICIPAL TAXES

Other ChargesSTREET RENEWAL

$43,676.4973,540.95

The City of WinniPegAssessment and Taxation Department

Frontage LevY 1,512.97

$43,676.49

NET PROPERTY TN(ES

f f iTONWITHYOURPAYMENT

DUE DATE: JUNE 30' 2009

A penalty is charged if payment is received or postmarked after June 30, 2009

PLEASE RETAIN YOUR CANCELLED CHEQUE AS NO ADDITIONAL RECEIPT WILL BE ISSUED--- 510 Marn srreetWlnnlpeg Winnipeg, Manitoba R3B 3M2

ROLL NUMBEruruUUENO DU ROLE

13020010500

MANITOBA PUBLIC INSURANCE CORPORATION

C/O LAI{D MANAGEMENT SERVIEES

3 0 8 . 2 5 T U P P E R S T N

PORTAGE LA PRAIRIE,MB R]-N 3K1

R t , 3 0 e 0 0 I 0 58CI00 I J '7?1 ? q t { I 3 na0 B1 u50u

PAYABLE AT MOST FINANCTAL INSTITUTIONS.

PLEASE MAKE CHEQUE PAYABLE TO:

THE CITY OF WINNIPEG, TAX BR,ANCH

anRennsienntEnE

$0.00TOTAL PAYABLSMONTANT PAYABLE

$117,217 -44AMouNT PAIDiMoNTANT PRvE

GiatcureniTtaa- $117,217'44

TffieS oue $1fl,217.44

IMpoRTArvr nzgssnegj - vk'tt ;tur wabsite at: www.winnipegassessment com

r : l l l ? l r r r Q 0 O r ! g E


.*-3lw lnnlpeg

THE CITY OF WII\ITIPEG - VILLE DF'WINI\IPEG) FOR 2OO9 GRAI{T-II{.LIEU BUSIT{ESS TAXESSTATEMENT AND DEMAI{D FOR 2OO9 GR

' ,REI,EVE ET DEMANDE DE SUB\{ENTION TENAI{T LIEU DE TAXES - 2OO9

STATEMENT DATE / DATE DU RELEVE

April 20, 2009

NAMETS) OF TMABLE PARTY / NOM(S) DE LA pARTtE |MPOSABLE

MANITOBA PUBLIC INSURANCE CORPORATION

TNQUIRIES / RENSEIGNEMENTS

311 or tollfree 1-877-3114974

311 ou (sans frais) le 1-877-3114974

IMPORTANT MESSAGES, -. Visit ourwebgite at;:.Wwlv.winnipegasse.ssment.com

ROLL NUMBEFyNUMERo ou R6ue

24730

ARREARS/ARRIERES

$0.00

TOTAL PAYABLEIMONTANT PAYABLE

$47,039.40

AMOUNT PAIDiMONTANT PAYE

MANITOBA PUBLIC INSURANCE

7\ I .234 DONAIJD ST

WINNIPEG, MB R3C ] .M8

B E q ? 3 N X X X X X X N O O q S O 3 I q O E q ? 3 O X X X X X X

PLEASE PAY: ..\ FAIRE PNRVEruIN A:The City of winnipeg \y Ville de Winnipeg

Assessment and Taxation Department -{ Service de l'€valuation et des laxes

510 Main Street rr,. . \ 510, rue Mainwrnnip"g,rl,r"ntobaR3B3M2 Winnipeg ;;;i-".1 *.t.*t

CORPORATION

ROLL NO. / N'DU ROLE

PREMISES ASSESSED. STREET NUMBER, ETC./ LOCAUX EVRI.UES - N' DE VOIRIE, ETC.

1075 PORTAGE AVE

ANNUAL RENTAL VALUEANNUAL RENTAL VALUC I % RATEVALEUR LOCATIVE ANNUELLE I

TAUX EN 7O

606,960 | 7.75

CURRENT YEAR'S TM (add penalties from'June 1,2009)TAXE DE L'ANNEE EN COURS (aioutez p6nalitds i compter du 1er iuin 2009) 47,039.40

0.00SMALL BUSINESS TAX CREDITcREDtrs D'rMpOT pouR pETlrES ENTREpRISESNET BUSINESS TAXTAXE D'ENTREPRISE NETTE

$47,039.40

0.00BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT ZONEZONE D:AMELIORATION COMMERCIALE

TOTAL DUE / MONTANT DU $47,039.40

r : l 1 l ? l r u l [ Q r ! q &


Winnipeg.ca (UD) : Assessment & Taxation : Business Details

City of WinnipegAssessrnent & Taxation Deparlment

Business Details

Business Assessment Roll Number24730

Total Annual Renta!-Value Total Premise Area

$606,960

1075 Portage Ave

Premise Area 44,614 sq ft

Estimated Base Rent

Cost To Occupy

Total Cost To Occupy

Premise Annual Rental Value

Paee 1 of I

Heat 44,614 sq ft @ $0.67 =. $29,891Hydro 44 ,614sqf t@$0.32 =$14,276

Water 44,614 sqft @ $0.11 = $4,908AirConditioning 44,614 sqft @ $0.30 = $13,384

Total Cost To Occupy

Premise Annual Rental Value

1075 Portage Ave

Premise Area 19,238 sq ft

Estimated Base Rent

Cost To Occupy

63,852 sq ft

Record # 1

$400,634

$62,459 $62,459

$463,080

Record # 3

$116,967

$26,932 $26,932

$143,880

Heat 19,238 sq ft @ $0.67 = $12,889Hydro 19,238 sq ft @ $0 32 = $6,156

W a t e r 1 9 , 2 3 8 s q f t @ $ 0 . 1 1 = $ 2 , 1 1 6

AirCondi t ioning 19,238sqft @ $0.30 = $5,771

http://winnipegassessment.com/AsmtPub/englislr/propertydetails/BADetails.aspx?pglang... 0412212009


^ ' 87 / L5 /2809 13 : lB 2449852332 PAGE A2

THE CITY OF WINNIPEGmrupeg AS$E$$MENT AND IAXATION DEPARTMENT

SERVICE DE L'EVALUATION ET DE$ TAXES

20{ 0 PROPERTY AS$ES$MENT HOTICE June 0s, z00el

Plesse reviaw the fottowtng infonnation fo ansum that your addnss,/aEal descnp tion andyalues dn ecarate,

PROFIRTY I'lto itt ssn.'rt dnd To;otidn lhpafim.i eltablilhes your 7nwly vdhe b! looltng ot propcrty charact1tlsurg 1fidVALU! astiol.atcs dthe mort probable ,. hs pttc.Ior yonr iopeiV iaai O""n,iH rr,tirU 6 j,'iiOi,

THts fsASSE$SED

VALUESTATUSCODE

PROPERTY CIASSCODE

REASON FORCHANGE

$4,9s7,000Grarrt Otner Fnope$ Reessgssmgnt

TOTAL PROFERTYAssEBtirEHr $4,897,000

NOTA

DO YOU lifllD y:Y\:lyd " "**

alllollrWorwtton k cotscl Eawcv€t, ilroulnd d n*nb nrreld cldrliczda , ptcarc conlaat,E q3AssfttraNc!?

'rftnm D'Iw

ne dtiltlnant N t, Ulbltc t {.onftltio,' ond efi &.vhwd at , onies qfflf.lwtsnen adiwtiat Deprmudt *4i, Matn stftet ot dt cia Hai. t'*qncnt * powni i rt', r,inaa"iiiigi iiiifririfr"]:i#r * .,p a6,**,. }nmcen naamcrrr, in thri noi* andlrc i"i, ii,tJ *iipt*_t.

pROFERfY Fcr ftrrthir hrtonnrflonr ph.re codrct 3tl or tolt frg. t.!? fel,t4e.'a,ASglSttlIlT vrw$.,wlndpe!f,rmtmcnLconrWeulnlEg: prlvat UEer |t|! 2aO?Za

__ ___ - __ __ _ -__- :_ -_:_-- -____- : - ._-

Notice of Appeel to the Board of RevisionRoilNunber 13020010500

[ffiid!$gHo$wrffif;hn*Ti"ffi*[:",:*$Rel,r!h" jy3 F,!l"d S.E 9l1d.or nru*n ii+,r6atin"6ir am *nrdraE mih*b hE rddterg belqir. ;oudfu; i,;uiliriifriffijilrlippr r6rhrur.oc*riis.Final Date of Appeel Applicetion: June 25 20os . F$f"ilfiXif,lrgil;1'i5r,l* t'rt-,wtnnrpog, nE Riu 2rirr

BILL

I,IANTTOBA PuBLrc IN$URAI.ICE eoRFozu\TIoNe/o rAtirD !4AivAcBMEN? sERticss308-25 TIIPPER ST N IPORTAGE I.A PRAIRTE, MB RlN 3K1.

ROLL NUMBER

13020010500

PROPERW ADDRESS1075 PORTAGE AVE

TITLF / DEED2084477

LEGAL DESCRIPTIONPart of Lot Lot Blqck Plan Farieh

3 ?6601 5S/60 gT , IA

REGTSTERED OWNER(S)TI"IE MANTTOBA FUBLIC INSURANCE CORPORATION

llllillillllilillllilillllllillllllillilllllllllilllillllililillilllltiltiltlililillililliltiltilillltilililllltlllillilt


DATE: 20L0104/06T I I ' lE :08 :36

STATUS ( )F T ITLE. . . . . .ORIGII{ATIJIG ()FFICE. . .REGISTERIJIG OFFICE. . .REGISTMTIOJ{ DATE... .C()l ' lPLETI()ll DATE. . . .,,

I'IANIT0BASTATUS OF

ACCEPTEDt' l I NN I PEGl ' l l NN I PEG2005/04/082005/04/?0

TITLE

PR(lDUCEDADDRESS.

F()R..

CLIE I IT F ILE . . . NAPRODUCED BY. . . S. ROSE

TITLE 1IO:

PAGE:

2080477

1

LEGAL DESCRIPTIOII:

THE MAIiIITOBA PUBLIC INST'RJATiICE CORPORJATION

IS REGISTERED OWNER SUBJECT TO SUCH ENTRIES RECORDEDHEREON IN THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED LATiID:

LOT 3 PLA}I 2660L WLTOIN RL 58 TO 60 PARISH OF ST iIAMES

ACTIYE TITLE CHARGE(S):

3111710 t{PG ACCEPTED CAVEAT REG'D: 2005/03/3LDESCRIPTIOlI : ZONING AGREEMENTFR0l ' l /BY: THE CITY 0F WINNIPEGT(): I ' I ILLIAM R. STOVEL AS SOLICITOR AND AGENTCOllSI DERATIOI{: l l0TES:

ACTIVE MANITOBA PUBLIC INSURANCE CORPC/O LAND I'|ANAGEl'|ENT SERVICES3 0 8 . 2 5 T U P P E R S T N ,PORTAGE LA PRAIRIE, t ' |B

ORI GI I|ATI llG I llSTRUl'lEllT(S) :REGISTRATI0II ]|U]'IBER TYPE REG. DATE

2005/04/083116549 l^lPG TPRESE]ITED BY: LAND

FR0l'l: H. M.T(): THE

POSTAL CODE

R1N 3K1

C()NSIDERATIOlI

$ 1 , 7 0 0 , 0 0 0 . 0 0MANAGE1'|ENT SERVICESTHE QUEEN ( l ' |ANITOBA)

MAllITOBA PUBLIC INSURANCE CORPORATION

SHOR]I YALUE

$2 ,250 ,000 .00

FROl'l TITLE llUl,lBER(S) :

T4L7364 t'lPG ALL

LA]ID I]IDEX:-_TOT-BLOCK SURYEY PLAN

3 26601IIOTE:

CERTIFIED TRUE EXTRACT PRODUCED FROM THE LAND TITLES DATASTORAGE SYSTEM ON 2OLO/04/06 OF TITLE NUMBER 2080477

************ STATUS 0F TITLE 2080477 HPG ColtrIllUED 011 I|EXTPAGE ************


DATE: 2oLotolto6 }IANI T0BATIl' lE: 08:36

STATUS ()F TITLETITLE ll0: 2080177

PAGE: 2

STATUS OF TITLE... . . . ACCEPTED PR(IDUCED FOR.. NAORIGI]IATIJIG (IFFICE... t . I I ] ' | ] ' | IPEG ADDRESS... O ' O IREGISTERIJIG OFFICE... l . l INNIPEGREGISTRATIOII DATE.... 2005/04/08Coli fPLETI0lf DATE... . . . 2005/04/20

CLIEI IT FILE. . . NAPRODUCED 8Y... S.ROSE

ACCEPTED THIS 8TH DAY OF APRIL, 2OO5BY B.iICEACHERII T()R THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR ()FTHE LA]ID TITLES DISTRICT OF TIIIIIIPEG.

CERTIFIED TRUE EXTRACT PRODUCED FROM THE LAND TITLES DATASTORAGE SYSTEM ON 2OLO/04/06 OF TITLE I'IUI'|BER 2080477 .

ElfD 0F STATUS 0F TITLE 2090477 tpc **************


Appendix 5

Demographic Information


Site MapPrepared by Clarus Real Estate Advisors

©2009 ESRI On-demand reports and maps from Business Analyst Online. Order at www.esri.com/bao or call 800-292-2224 4/12/2010 Page 1 of 1

1075 Portage Avenue Latitude: 49.8842971075 Portage Ave, Winnipeg,... Longitude: -97.177896Motor Vehicle Branch Site Type: Ring Rings: 1, 2, 3 Kilometers


http://www.esri.com/bao

Census Market Profile

Summary Reports

Store ID: 1 0 - 1 Kilometers 0 - 2 Kilometers 0 - 3 Kilometers

2006 Population 15+ by Language Characteristics

Total population by Knowledge of Official Languages 12,799 48,191 103,778

English only 11,238 42,648 91,943

French only 0 27 34

English and French 1,463 4,980 10,493

Neither English nor French 98 536 1,308

2006 Population 15+ by Mother Tongue

Total Single Response 12,564 47,150 102,123

English 10,054 34,753 74,214

French 197 992 2,120

Total Non-Official 2,313 11,405 25,789

Multiple Languages 235 1,041 1,655

French & Non-Official 0 10 34

English & Non-Official 198 903 1,400

English & French 37 128 218

English & French & Non-Official 0 0 2

2006 Population 15+ by Ethnic Characteristics

Immigration Status

Non-immigrant population 10,513 37,037 78,399

Total immigrants by selected places of birth 2,231 10,538 23,864

Non-permanent residents 55 615 1,515

Visible Minority Status

Visible Minority Chinese 182 669 2,220

Visible Minority South Asian 116 589 1,381

Visible Minority Black 267 1,295 3,800

Visible Minority Filipino 1,049 5,703 10,102

Visible Minority Latin American 119 354 889

Visible Minority Southeast Asian 129 792 1,670

Visible Minority Arab 19 129 569

Visible Minority West Asian 12 103 510

Visible Minority Korean 11 196 408

Visible Minority Japanese 36 143 399

Visible Minority All Other Visible Minorities 35 164 413

Visible Minority Multiple Visible Minorities 71 335 745

Source: Selected Environics Analytics Information Products are based, in whole or in part, on Computer File(s) licensed from Statistics Canada.© Copyright, HER MAJESTY THEQUEEN IN RIGHT OF CANADA, as represented by the Minister of Industry, Statistics Canada 2004.Environics Analytics Group is an Authorized User of selected Statistics Canada Computer File(s) and Distributor of derived Information Products under Licensing Agreement 6894.Environics Analytics Group is an Authorized Reseller of selected Statistics Canada Computer File(s) under Licensing Agreement 6894.No confidential information about an individual, family, household, organisation or business has been obtained from Statistics Canada.

©2009 ESRI Phone: 888-377-4575 - www.esri.com 04/12/2010 Page 1 of 4



Summary Reports


2006 Population 15+ by Educational Attainment

Total population 15+ years by highest certificate, diploma ordegree

10,543 39,924 87,502

No certificate, diploma or degree 2,000 9,297 19,599

Certificate, diploma or degree 8,543 30,627 67,903

High school certificate or equivalent 2,808 10,632 23,588

Apprenticeship or trades certificate or diploma 796 3,103 7,093

College, CEGEP or other non-university certificate ordiploma

1,508 5,173 12,069

University certificate, diploma or degree 3,431 11,719 25,153

University certificate or diploma below bachelor level 402 1,596 3,248

University certificate or degree 3,029 10,123 21,905

Bachelor's degree 2,019 6,342 14,211

University certificate or diploma above bachelorlevel

342 1,123 2,128

Degree in medicine, dentistry, veterinary medicineor optometry

64 297 631

Master's degree 463 1,740 3,816

Earned doctorate 141 621 1,120

2006 Population 15+ by Sex and Marital Status

Total 10,769 40,818 89,108

Never Married 4,811 18,496 41,257

Married, not Separated 4,063 14,616 30,505

Married, Separated 386 1,456 3,241

Widowed 1,017 3,643 8,189

Divorced 491 2,608 5,916

2006 Population 15+ by Common-Law Status

Total 10,769 40,818 89,108

Not in a common-law relationship 9,460 37,051 80,824

In a common-law relationship 1,309 3,767 8,284

2006 Population 15+ by Employment Status

Total 10,543 39,924 87,502

In the labour force 7,882 28,026 59,818

Employed 7,484 26,248 55,899

Unemployed 398 1,779 3,919

Not in the labour force 2,662 11,897 27,683





Summary Reports


2006 Employed Population 15+ by Occupation

Total labour force 15 years and over by occupation 7,882 28,026 59,818

All occupations

A Management occupations 583 2,157 4,951

B Business, finance and administration occupation 1,312 4,624 10,184

C Natural and applied sciences and relatedoccupations

477 1,625 3,606

D Health occupations 535 1,833 3,972

E Occupations in social science, education,government service and religion

1,104 3,263 6,818

F Occupations in art, culture, recreation and sport 603 1,333 2,644

G Sales and service occupations 1,841 7,501 15,968

H Trades, transport and equipment operators andrelated occupations

859 3,085 6,318

I Occupations unique to primary industry 64 268 590

J Occupations unique to processing, manufacturingand utilities

376 1,842 3,567

2006 Workers by Means of Transportation to Work

Total 6,948 24,664 53,099

Car, truck, van, as driver 3,692 13,167 27,756

Car, truck, van, as passenger 653 2,483 4,480

Public transportation 1,463 4,929 11,050

Walked 687 2,788 7,597

Other means 452 1,296 2,216





Summary Reports


2006 Households by Type

Total Family Households 4,039 14,433 30,449

Couple Family Households 3,318 11,551 24,412

Married-couple family 1,923 6,805 14,268

With Children 1,215 4,119 8,026

Common-Law Couples 673 1,865 4,107

With Children 237 662 1,203

Lone Parent Family 721 2,882 6,037

Total number of persons in private households (20% sampledata)

12,768 47,382 102,306

Number of non-family persons 3,014 12,596 31,234

Living with relatives 387 1,377 3,086

Living with non-relatives only 788 2,696 6,240

Living alone 1,839 8,523 21,907

2006 Households by Size

Total 5,501 21,413 49,712

1 person 1,837 8,553 21,963

2 persons 1,767 6,179 14,562

3 persons 837 2,862 5,927

4-5 persons 928 3,258 6,237

6 or more persons 132 560 1,023

2006 Housing Units by Year Structure Built

Total number of occupied private dwellings by period ofconstruction

5,503 21,412 49,731

Period of construction, before 1946 4,213 13,039 22,332

Period of construction, 1946 to 1960 742 3,506 10,634



Period of construction, 1981 to 1985 65 521 2,061

Period of construction, 1986 to 1990 65 297 1,525

Period of construction, 1991 to 1995 86 272 601






Demographic and Income

Summary Reports

Area ID: 1_1 Description: 0 - 1 Kilometers

Summary 2004 2009 2014

Population 13,675 12,783 12,154

Households 5,643 5,538 5,491

Families 3,450 3,383 3,355

Average Household Size 2.37 2.26 2.17

Owned Dwellings 3,888 3,824 3,798

Rented Dwellings 1,756 1,714 1,693

Median Age 35.40 36.20 36.90

Trends: 2009-2014 Annual Rate Area Nation

Population -1.00% 1.16%

Households -0.17% 1.56%

Families -0.17% 1.73%

Owned Dwellings -0.14% 1.84%

Median Household Income 2.57% 3.23%

2004 2009 2014

Households by Income Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

<$10,000 381 6.76% 305 5.50% 240 4.37%

$10,000 - $19,999 703 12.46% 548 9.89% 452 8.23%

$20,000 - $29,999 769 13.62% 626 11.31% 538 9.80%

$30,000 - $39,999 854 15.13% 711 12.83% 595 10.84%

$40,000 - $49,999 689 12.21% 657 11.87% 626 11.41%

$50,000 - $59,999 617 10.94% 582 10.51% 543 9.89%

$60,000 - $69,999 375 6.64% 468 8.45% 517 9.41%

$70,000 - $79,999 291 5.16% 341 6.15% 406 7.39%

$80,000 - $89,999 192 3.40% 256 4.63% 315 5.73%

$90,000 - $99,999 158 2.79% 169 3.05% 224 4.08%

$100,000+ 615 10.90% 875 15.81% 1,034 18.84%

Median Household Income 41,669 48,813 55,414

Average Household Income 53,808 67,494 78,083

Per Capita Income 22,204 29,241 35,277

Source: Selected Environics Analytics Information Products are based, in whole or in part, on Computer File(s) licensed from Statistics Canada.© Copyright, HER MAJESTYTHE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF CANADA, as represented by the Minister of Industry, Statistics Canada 2004.Environics Analytics Group is an Authorized User of selected Statistics Canada Computer File(s) and Distributor of derived Information Products under Licensing Agreement6894.Environics Analytics Group is an Authorized Reseller of selected Statistics Canada Computer File(s) under Licensing Agreement 6894.No confidential information about an individual, family, household, organisation or business has been obtained from Statistics Canada.




Summary Reports


2004 2009 2014

Population by Age Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

0-4 812 5.93% 610 4.77% 508 4.18%

5-9 831 6.08% 708 5.54% 541 4.45%

10-14 756 5.53% 651 5.09% 565 4.65%

15-19 804 5.88% 783 6.13% 683 5.62%

20-24 988 7.22% 981 7.67% 913 7.51%

25-34 2,550 18.65% 2,415 18.89% 2,494 20.52%

35-44 1,207 8.83% 1,993 15.59% 1,845 15.18%

45-54 2,027 14.82% 2,021 15.81% 1,802 14.83%

55-64 1,183 8.65% 1,373 10.74% 1,448 11.92%

65-74 608 4.45% 604 4.72% 727 5.98%

75-84 467 3.42% 440 3.44% 410 3.37%

85+ 170 1.24% 205 1.60% 216 1.78%

Population by Language and Ethnic Indicators

2004 2009 2014

Population by MotherTongue

Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

Total Single Response 13,231 98.77% 12,352 98.79% 11,749 98.83%

English 10,588 79.04% 9,859 78.86% 9,299 78.22%

French 207 1.54% 205 1.64% 210 1.77%

Total Non-Official 2,437 18.19% 2,288 18.30% 2,240 18.84%

Italian 130 0.97% 122 0.98% 119 1.00%

German 467 3.49% 398 3.19% 353 2.97%

Panjabi 22 0.16% 19 0.15% 17 0.14%

Cantonese 71 0.53% 71 0.57% 71 0.60%

Spanish 140 1.05% 140 1.12% 147 1.24%

Arabic 11 0.08% 10 0.08% 9 0.08%

Tagalog 684 5.11% 664 5.31% 675 5.68%

Portuguese 189 1.41% 163 1.31% 142 1.20%

Polish 52 0.39% 48 0.39% 45 0.38%

Mandarin 15 0.11% 16 0.13% 17 0.14%

Chinese n.o.s. 25 0.19% 28 0.22% 30 0.25%

Urdu 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00%

Vietnamese 55 0.41% 43 0.34% 33 0.27%

Ukrainian 142 1.06% 141 1.13% 145 1.22%

Persian 2 0.01% 2 0.01% 2 0.01%

Russian 4 0.03% 3 0.03% 3 0.02%

Dutch 36 0.27% 32 0.26% 31 0.26%

Korean 20 0.15% 20 0.16% 18 0.15%

Greek 18 0.13% 13 0.10% 10 0.09%

Tamil 11 0.08% 10 0.08% 10 0.08%


Gujarati 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00%

Romanian 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00%

Hindi 2 0.01% 2 0.02% 2 0.02%

Hungarian 13 0.10% 12 0.09% 10 0.08%

Croatian 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00%

Creoles 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00%

Serbian 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00%

Bengali 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00%

Japanese 10 0.07% 10 0.08% 9 0.08%

Armenian 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00%

Turkish 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00%

Czech 10 0.07% 10 0.08% 11 0.09%

Finnish 4 0.03% 3 0.03% 3 0.02%

Aboriginal Languages 102 0.76% 98 0.78% 97 0.82%

Others 202 1.51% 209 1.67% 231 1.94%

Multiple Languages 223 1.67% 204 1.63% 188 1.58%

French & Non-Official 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 164 0.00%

English & Non-Official 195 1.46% 177 1.41% 0 1.38%

English & French 28 0.21% 27 0.22% 24 0.20%

English & French &Non-Official

0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00%





Summary Reports


2004 2009 2014

Population by Immigration Status Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

Non-immigrant population 11,112 82.59% 10,270 81.80% 9,665 80.97%

Total immigrants by selected places ofbirth

2,280 16.95% 2,223 17.70% 2,210 18.51%

Non-permanent residents 63 0.47% 63 0.50% 63 0.52%

2004 2009 2014

Population by Visible Minority Status Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

Visible Minority Chinese 165 1.23% 174 1.39% 180 1.51%

Visible Minority South Asian 100 0.75% 126 1.01% 146 1.23%

Visible Minority Black 282 2.11% 302 2.41% 311 2.62%

Visible Minority Filipino 1,074 8.02% 1,051 8.40% 1,004 8.45%

Visible Minority Latin American 115 0.86% 132 1.06% 141 1.19%

Visible Minority Southeast Asian 136 1.02% 118 0.94% 103 0.87%

Visible Minority Arab 17 0.13% 16 0.13% 15 0.12%

Visible Minority West Asian 2 0.01% 2 0.01% 2 0.01%

Visible Minority Korean 12 0.09% 10 0.08% 9 0.08%

Visible Minority Japanese 54 0.41% 48 0.39% 44 0.37%

Visible Minority All Other VisibleMinorities

31 0.23% 27 0.22% 24 0.20%

Visible Minority Multiple VisibleMinorities

55 0.41 66 0.53% 73 0.61%





Summary Reports






Summary Reports






Summary Reports


Summary 2004 2009 2014

Population 51,309 48,822 46,745

Households 21,857 21,740 21,648

Families 12,174 12,128 12,081


Owned Dwellings 12,089 12,052 12,005


Median Age 35.60 36.60 37.40



Households -0.08% 1.56%

Families -0.08% 1.73%



2004 2009 2014


<$10,000 2,220 10.16% 1,965 9.04% 1,733 8.01%

$10,000 - $19,999 3,460 15.83% 2,832 13.03% 2,381 11.00%

$20,000 - $29,999 3,223 14.75% 2,745 12.63% 2,436 11.25%

$30,000 - $39,999 2,805 12.83% 2,538 11.67% 2,317 10.71%

$40,000 - $49,999 2,166 9.91% 2,110 9.70% 2,113 9.76%

$50,000 - $59,999 1,768 8.09% 1,730 7.96% 1,661 7.67%

$60,000 - $69,999 1,384 6.33% 1,452 6.68% 1,447 6.68%

$70,000 - $79,999 1,099 5.03% 1,209 5.56% 1,243 5.74%

$80,000 - $89,999 628 2.87% 918 4.22% 1,045 4.83%

$90,000 - $99,999 556 2.55% 632 2.91% 813 3.75%

$100,000+ 2,548 11.66% 3,609 16.60% 4,458 20.59%








Summary Reports


2004 2009 2014


0-4 3,025 5.90% 2,309 4.73% 1,961 4.20%

5-9 2,972 5.79% 2,573 5.27% 1,987 4.25%

10-14 2,888 5.63% 2,526 5.17% 2,240 4.79%

15-19 3,152 6.14% 3,113 6.38% 2,734 5.85%

20-24 4,307 8.39% 4,328 8.86% 4,061 8.69%

25-34 8,806 17.16% 8,443 17.29% 8,767 18.75%

35-44 3,994 7.79% 6,781 13.89% 6,310 13.50%

45-54 7,326 14.28% 7,421 15.20% 6,616 14.15%

55-64 4,608 8.98% 5,444 11.15% 5,812 12.43%

65-74 2,517 4.91% 2,513 5.15% 2,987 6.39%

75-84 2,193 4.27% 2,022 4.14% 1,881 4.02%

85+ 1,187 2.31% 1,349 2.76% 1,390 2.97%


2004 2009 2014




English 36,134 72.94% 33,940 72.16% 31,854 70.72%

French 989 2.00% 967 2.06% 969 2.15%


Italian 318 0.64% 286 0.61% 266 0.59%

German 1,394 2.81% 1,175 2.50% 1,017 2.26%

Panjabi 80 0.16% 75 0.16% 69 0.15%

Cantonese 256 0.52% 245 0.52% 241 0.53%

Spanish 417 0.84% 429 0.91% 451 1.00%

Arabic 137 0.28% 138 0.29% 140 0.31%

Tagalog 3,633 7.33% 3,663 7.79% 3,762 8.35%

Portuguese 1,082 2.18% 895 1.90% 751 1.67%

Polish 210 0.42% 179 0.38% 155 0.34%

Mandarin 91 0.18% 98 0.21% 103 0.23%

Chinese n.o.s. 189 0.38% 198 0.42% 199 0.44%

Urdu 40 0.08% 42 0.09% 41 0.09%

Vietnamese 384 0.77% 394 0.84% 399 0.89%

Ukrainian 359 0.72% 341 0.72% 332 0.74%

Persian 41 0.08% 43 0.09% 44 0.10%

Russian 41 0.08% 37 0.08% 34 0.08%

Dutch 90 0.18% 80 0.17% 75 0.17%

Korean 190 0.38% 197 0.42% 200 0.44%

Greek 137 0.28% 124 0.26% 112 0.25%

Tamil 21 0.04% 17 0.04% 15 0.03%


Gujarati 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00%

Romanian 73 0.15% 78 0.17% 78 0.17%

Hindi 64 0.13% 57 0.12% 55 0.12%

Hungarian 95 0.19% 84 0.18% 75 0.17%

Croatian 35 0.07% 35 0.07% 34 0.07%

Creoles 41 0.08% 33 0.07% 26 0.06%

Serbian 30 0.06% 32 0.07% 33 0.07%

Bengali 9 0.02% 9 0.02% 9 0.02%

Japanese 86 0.17% 79 0.17% 68 0.15%

Armenian 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00%

Turkish 9 0.02% 9 0.02% 9 0.02%

Czech 41 0.08% 36 0.08% 33 0.07%

Finnish 37 0.08% 35 0.08% 33 0.07%

Aboriginal Languages 674 1.36% 644 1.37% 636 1.41%

Others 1,226 2.47% 1,367 2.91% 1,593 3.54%

Multiple Languages 971 1.96% 1,051 2.23% 1,200 2.66%

French & Non-Official 15 0.03% 14 0.03% 1,099 0.03%

English & Non-Official 856 1.73% 942 2.00% 13 2.44%

English & French 101 0.20% 95 0.20% 88 0.20%


0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00%





Summary Reports


2004 2009 2014




10,648 21.46% 9,567 20.31% 8,918 19.77%

Non-permanent residents 605 1.22% 605 1.28% 605 1.34%

2004 2009 2014


Visible Minority Chinese 665 1.34% 648 1.38% 633 1.41%

Visible Minority South Asian 571 1.15% 599 1.27% 604 1.34%

Visible Minority Black 1,294 2.61% 1,301 2.77% 1,246 2.77%



Visible Minority Southeast Asian 754 1.52% 828 1.76% 899 2.00%






147 0.30% 185 0.39% 254 0.56%


311 0.63 338 0.72% 351 0.78%





Summary Reports






Summary Reports






Summary Reports


Summary 2004 2009 2014

Population 110,199 105,356 101,291

Households 50,682 50,697 50,730

Families 25,444 25,475 25,466


Owned Dwellings 23,175 23,221 23,199


Median Age 35.60 36.60 37.30



Households 0.01% 1.56%

Families -0.01% 1.73%



2004 2009 2014


<$10,000 5,538 10.93% 4,946 9.76% 4,452 8.78%

$10,000 - $19,999 8,189 16.16% 6,872 13.55% 5,926 11.68%

$20,000 - $29,999 7,545 14.89% 6,573 12.96% 5,987 11.80%

$30,000 - $39,999 6,836 13.49% 6,146 12.12% 5,639 11.11%

$40,000 - $49,999 5,294 10.45% 5,143 10.14% 5,114 10.08%

$50,000 - $59,999 4,220 8.33% 4,192 8.27% 3,981 7.85%

$60,000 - $69,999 3,145 6.21% 3,394 6.69% 3,434 6.77%

$70,000 - $79,999 2,306 4.55% 2,668 5.26% 2,846 5.61%

$80,000 - $89,999 1,432 2.83% 1,959 3.86% 2,293 4.52%

$90,000 - $99,999 1,103 2.18% 1,352 2.67% 1,725 3.40%

$100,000+ 5,075 10.01% 7,453 14.70% 9,334 18.40%








Summary Reports


2004 2009 2014


0-4 6,077 5.51% 4,664 4.43% 3,968 3.92%

5-9 5,965 5.41% 5,192 4.93% 4,015 3.96%

10-14 5,510 5.00% 4,854 4.61% 4,314 4.26%

15-19 6,023 5.47% 5,961 5.66% 5,250 5.18%

20-24 9,412 8.54% 9,467 8.99% 8,852 8.74%

25-34 21,063 19.11% 20,194 19.17% 20,880 20.61%

35-44 8,623 7.82% 14,474 13.74% 13,445 13.27%

45-54 14,910 13.53% 15,131 14.36% 13,463 13.29%

55-64 9,693 8.80% 11,472 10.89% 12,227 12.07%

65-74 5,974 5.42% 5,978 5.67% 7,091 7.00%

75-84 5,279 4.79% 4,921 4.67% 4,603 4.54%

85+ 2,582 2.34% 3,049 2.89% 3,183 3.14%


2004 2009 2014




English 77,625 72.50% 72,904 71.37% 68,316 69.58%

French 2,099 1.96% 2,031 1.99% 2,025 2.06%


Italian 711 0.66% 637 0.62% 579 0.59%

German 2,447 2.29% 2,117 2.07% 1,859 1.89%

Panjabi 250 0.23% 246 0.24% 244 0.25%

Cantonese 530 0.50% 519 0.51% 525 0.53%

Spanish 1,043 0.97% 1,047 1.02% 1,068 1.09%

Arabic 597 0.56% 660 0.65% 730 0.74%

Tagalog 6,798 6.35% 6,800 6.66% 6,913 7.04%

Portuguese 1,836 1.72% 1,510 1.48% 1,260 1.28%

Polish 546 0.51% 465 0.46% 414 0.42%

Mandarin 433 0.40% 451 0.44% 465 0.47%

Chinese n.o.s. 666 0.62% 680 0.67% 693 0.71%

Urdu 83 0.08% 84 0.08% 80 0.08%

Vietnamese 907 0.85% 911 0.89% 920 0.94%

Ukrainian 1,085 1.01% 1,056 1.03% 1,072 1.09%

Persian 322 0.30% 324 0.32% 312 0.32%

Russian 223 0.21% 255 0.25% 296 0.30%

Dutch 206 0.19% 180 0.18% 165 0.17%

Korean 423 0.40% 429 0.42% 428 0.44%

Greek 189 0.18% 172 0.17% 158 0.16%

Tamil 47 0.04% 42 0.04% 38 0.04%


Gujarati 22 0.02% 20 0.02% 18 0.02%

Romanian 127 0.12% 137 0.13% 142 0.14%

Hindi 168 0.16% 180 0.18% 196 0.20%

Hungarian 230 0.21% 209 0.20% 191 0.19%

Croatian 172 0.16% 160 0.16% 145 0.15%

Creoles 134 0.13% 122 0.12% 113 0.11%

Serbian 205 0.19% 214 0.21% 224 0.23%

Bengali 54 0.05% 52 0.05% 52 0.05%

Japanese 266 0.25% 249 0.24% 228 0.23%

Armenian 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00%

Turkish 20 0.02% 19 0.02% 19 0.02%

Czech 118 0.11% 114 0.11% 109 0.11%

Finnish 42 0.04% 40 0.04% 38 0.04%

Aboriginal Languages 1,428 1.33% 1,365 1.34% 1,344 1.37%

Others 3,377 3.15% 3,988 3.90% 4,811 4.90%

Multiple Languages 1,527 1.43% 1,656 1.62% 1,885 1.92%

French & Non-Official 19 0.02% 18 0.02% 1,713 0.02%

English & Non-Official 1,337 1.25% 1,472 1.44% 16 1.74%

English & French 161 0.15% 155 0.15% 146 0.15%


10 0.01% 11 0.01% 11 0.01%





Summary Reports


2004 2009 2014




22,999 21.50% 22,689 22.24% 22,160 22.59%

Non-permanent residents 1,487 1.39% 1,487 1.46% 1,487 1.52%

2004 2009 2014


Visible Minority Chinese 2,011 1.88% 2,079 2.04% 2,101 2.14%

Visible Minority South Asian 1,261 1.18% 1,317 1.29% 1,325 1.35%

Visible Minority Black 3,662 3.42% 3,791 3.71% 3,766 3.84%



Visible Minority Southeast Asian 1,594 1.49% 1,683 1.65% 1,756 1.79%






340 0.32% 489 0.48% 645 0.66%


692 0.65 753 0.74% 793 0.81%





Summary Reports






Summary Reports





Appendix 6

Building Sketch Plans


37/48

37/48

37/48

37/24

37/30

37/48

37/48

37/24

37/30

37/48

37/48

37/24

37/30

37/48

37/48

37/24

37/30

37/48

37/24

37/30

37/48

37/24

37/30

37/48

37/48

37/48

37/24

37/30

37/48

37/48

37/24

37/30

37/48

37/48

37/24

37/30

37/48

37/48

37/24

37/30

37/48

37/24

37/30

37/48

37/24

37/30

37/48

37/48

37/48

37/24

37/30

37/48

37/48

37/24

37/30

37/48

37/48

37/48

37/24

37/30

37/48

37/24

37/30

37/48

37/24

37/30

37/48

37/48

37/48

37/24

37/30

37/48

37/48

37/24

37/30

37/48

37/24

37/30

37/48

37/48

37/24

37/30

37/48

37/24

37/30

37/48

37/48

37/48

37/48

37/48

37/48

37/48

37/48

37/24

37/30

37/48

37/48

37/24

37/30

37/48

37/48

37/48

37/24

37/30

37/48

37/24

37/30

37/48

37/24

37/30

37/48

37/48

37/48

37/24

37/30

37/48

37/48

37/24

37/30

37/48

37/24

37/30

37/48

37/48

37/24

37/30

37/48

37/24

37/30

37/48

37/48

37/48

37/48

37/48

MASTERPLANS

BASEMENT FLOOR PLANMR

OCT. 2009

NOT TO SCALE

MP38182-B

1075 PORTAGE AVE.


37/48

37/48

37/48

37/24

37/30

37/48

37/48

37/24

37/30

37/48

37/48

37/24

37/30

37/48

37/48

37/24

37/30

37/48

37/24

37/30

37/48

37/24

37/30

37/48

37/4837/48

37/24

37/30

37/48

37/48

37/24

37/30

37/4837/48

37/24

37/30

37/48

37/24

37/30

37/48

37/48

37/48

37/24

37/30

37/48

37/24

37/30

37/48

37/48

37/24

37/30

37/24

37/30

37/48

37/48

37/48

37/24

37/30

37/48

37/48

37/24

37/30

37/48

37/48

37/24

37/30

37/48

37/24

37/30

37/48

37/48

37/48

37/24

37/30

37/48

37/24

37/30

37/48

37/48

37/24

37/30

37/24

37/30

37/48

37/48

37/48

37/24

37/30

37/48

37/48

37/24

37/30

37/48

37/48

37/24

37/30

37/48

37/24

37/30

37/48

37/48

37/48

37/24

37/30

37/48

37/30

37/48

37/48

37/24

37/30

37/24

37/30

37/48

37/48

37/48

37/24

37/30

37/48

37/48

37/24

37/30

37/48

37/48

37/24

37/30

37/48

37/24

37/30

37/48

37/48

37/48

37/24

37/30

37/48

37/48

37/24

37/30

37/48

37/3037/24

37/30

37/48

37/48

37/48

37/24

37/30

37/48

37/48

37/24

37/30

37/48

37/30

37/48

37/24

37/30

37/48

37/48

37/48

37/24

37/30

37/48

37/24

37/30

37/48

37/24

37/30

37/48

37/48

37/48

37/24

37/30

37/48

37/48

37/48

37/24

37/30

37/48

37/48

37/48

37/48

37/24

37/30

37/48

37/24

37/30

37/48

37/48

37/24

37/30

37/24

37/30

37/48

37/30

37/24

37/30

37/48

37/4837/48

37/48

37/24

37/30

37/48

37/48

37/30

37/48

37/24

37/30

37/48

37/48

37/48

37/24

37/30

37/48

37/48

37/24

37/30

37/48

37/48

37/24

37/30

37/48

37/48

37/24

37/30

37/48

37/24

37/30

37/48

37/48

37/24

37/30

37/24

37/48

37/48

37/24

37/30

37/48

37/24

37/30

37/48

37/24

37/30

MASTERPLANS

MAIN FLOOR PLANMR

OCT. 2009

NOT TO SCALE

MP38182-1

1075 PORTAGE AVE.


37/48

37/48

37/48

37/24

37/30

37/48

37/48

37/24

37/30

37/48

37/48

37/24

37/30

37/48

37/48

37/24

37/30

37/48

37/24

37/30

37/48

37/24

37/30

37/48

37/48

37/48

37/24

37/30

37/48

37/48

37/24

37/30

37/48

37/48

37/24

37/30

37/48

37/24

37/30

37/48

37/48

37/48

37/48

37/48

37/48

37/48

37/48

37/48

37/48

37/48

37/48

37/48

37/48

37/48

37/48

37/48

37/48

37/48

37/48

37/48

37/48

37/48

37/48

37/48

37/48

37/48

37/48

37/48

37/4837/48

37/48

37/48

37/48

37/3037/30

37/2437/24

37/3037/24

37/3037/24

37/3037/24

37/2437/30

37/3037/24

37/2437/30

37/3037/24

37/3037/24

37/3037/24

37/2437/30

37/3037/24

37/3037/30

37/2437/24

37/48

37/48

37/48

37/2437/3037/24

37/48

37/48

37/30

37/48

37/30

37/48

37/48

37/48

37/48

37/48

37/48

37/48

37/48

37/48

37/24 37/30

37/2437/24

37/30

37/48

37/48

37/2437/3037/24

37/48

37/48

37/30

37/3037/30

37/3037/30

MASTERPLANS

SECOND FLOOR PLANMR

OCT. 2009

NOT TO SCALE

MP38182-2

1075 PORTAGE AVE.


Documents

PUB (MPI) 1-18 Reference: AI.8, Investment Portfolio …€¦ · · 2017-01-28PUB (MPI) 1-18 - 2 - Recommendations made by Aon (p.34 and p.35 of the March 2008 ALM report) The