HomeMy WebLinkAboutHK - 11 Young St - Mayfair Hotel - Rockway Centre Maintenance Requirements - Status UpdatePage 1 of 2
Colin Goodeve
From: Michelle Wade
Sent: March 22, 2011 10:23 AM
To: Colin Goodeve
Subject: FW: Mayfair Hotel
From: Doug Hergott
Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2011 11:37 AM
To: Michelle Wade
Cc: Leon Bensason; Cynthia Fletcher; Rod Regier; Phil Mellor
Subject: RE: Mayfair Hotel
Michelle the following information can be shared with your committee; please let us know if you feel an
fm representative is still required at your April 5th meeting. Cynthia have I missed anything.
Status of Mayfair Building
• Building has been in an unoccupied mode for several years now.
• Building has minimal heat.
• Building is inspected by Fm on a regular basis ensuring building envelope remains water tight
• Fm Security staff patrol interior/exterior of building on a routine basis, all building concerns are
reported and addressed in a timely manner.
• Exterior of building is monitored for damage/vandalism and or graffiti, deficiencies are
addressed in a timely manner.
• Annual inspection/certification/maintenance/repairs of Mayfair fire alarm suppression system is
performed by cities approved fire alarm contractor. Documentation is kept on file.
• Annual electrical safety inspection is performed by an ESA inspector; identified repairs are
corrected by Fm electricians.
• Mayfair building is monitored by City Of Kitchener Fire department direct detect system.
• Fire Department alarm technicians inspect and test Direct Detect system on a routine basis.
• Exterior street level appearance/windows doors /siding etc is monitored and kept clean at all
times.
Doug Hergott CMMII
Manager, Facilities Management
City of Kitchener
doutrJtergot kitcltettenca
Office 519 - 741-2684
Fax 519 - 741-2690
Cell 519 - 573-8754
TTY 519 - 741-2385
"Life's A Journey Not a Destination"
From: Michelle Wade
Sent: March 9, 2011 10:16 AM
To: Doug Hergott
Cc: Leon Bensason; Cynthia Fletcher; Rod Regier
Subject: Mayfair Hotel
ZZio3/ZOII 4 - 1
Page 2 of 2
Hi Doug,
Last night the Heritage Kitchener Committee requested that staff provide an update at the April 5th HK Committee
meeting regarding the current condition of the Mayfair Hotel. Could you please provide an update on the current
condition, including ongoing inspections, maintenance or other work? If necessary, are you available to provide
an update at the April 5th HK Committee meeting? Please advise.
Many thanks in advance,
Michelle
Michelle Wade, BES
Heritage Planner
Development and Technical Services Department
Planning Division
P. 519.741.2839
F. 519.741..2624
TTY. 1-866-969-9994
michelle.wade(a~kitchener.ca
22io3i2o1 ~ 4 - 2
Staff Re ort
~ITCH~I`r?E~ X01111'1']~1111~~'$E1'V1[QS~~pQ~'~~T?~Q1~ w~+w.kitthenerca
REPORT TO: Community and Infrastructure Services Committee
DATE OF MEETING: March 21, 2011
SUBMITTED BY: Mark Hildebrand, Director, Community Programs and
Services, ext. 2687; Cynthia Fletcher, Director, Facilities
Management, ext. 2424
PREPARED BY: Mark Hildebrand, Director, Community Programs and
Services, ext. 2686
WARD(S) INVOLVED: All
DATE OF REPORT: March 14, 2011
REPORT NO.: CSD-11-040
SUBJECT: ROCKWAY CENTRE MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS
RECOMMENDATION:
For information.
BACKGROUND:
On December 7, 2009 staff tabled report CSD-09-071 addressing the Older Adult Strategy
future directions. Within this report, it was recommended that the Rockway Senior Centre be
closed, effective January 2011. In summary, four factors contributed to this recommendation
being brought forward.
First, emerging trends have shown that as the baby boom population reaches their older adult
years, they will be requesting the provision of different programming, opportunities and venues
(e.g. more active programming and the appropriate facilities to accommodate this). Research
indicates that the "new" older adult has a very different perception of aging, and traditional
senior centres, including the Rockway Centre, will not be able to meet their needs.
Second, supporting the research and demographic trends outlined in the Older Adult Strategy,
even though the number of older adults has been growing in our community, participation at
Rockway Centre, in the traditional seniors programs, has been declining steadily over the past
number of years. For example:
a. Senior Memberships had dropped 25% from 2004 to 2009;
b. Attendance in ongoing groups has declined by approximately 49% from 2004 to
2009;
c. The meal program served 33% fewer meals in 2009 than in 2004;
d. The Marmo Travel Club membership has declined by 55% from 2004 to 2009; and,
e. Attendance at special events had declined by 63%.
Third, although the facility has been on a regular maintenance program and has been well
maintained by the City of Kitchener's Facilities Management Division throughout the years,
4-3
Staff Re ort
~ITCH~I`r?E~ X01111'1']~1111~~'$E1'V1[QS~~pQ~'~~T?~Q1~ w~+w.kitthenerca
given its age and the inherent site conditions there are significant challenges that will have to be
addressed if the facility is not closed. This includes:
a. Foundation drainage and repairs that will need to be completed to address the
ingress of water into the basement;
b. Accessibility renovations which will be required into the future as the demands of
the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (AODA) become more stringent;
and
c. Elevator repairs/replacement.
Finally, and perhaps the most important consideration, it was found that if the Rockway Centre
was closed, the majority of programs and services operating out of the facility could be housed
at our more modern Community Centres. A review of space at other recreation facilities and
Community Centres showed that, although one facility could not house all Rockway programs
entirely, it was possible to find space to accommodate for most of the programming throughout
our community.
It is important to note that although there was approximately $1 million in repairs required for
Rockway Centre, and this factor contributed to the rationale for closing the facility, it was not the
major consideration that led to the recommendation. Understanding the trends of the future, the
facility limitations and declining participation at Rockway, and considering that it was felt that
existing Rockway programs could be housed at other facilities, staff felt that closing the facility
was a viable option.
At the December 7, 2009 Community Services Committee meeting it was resolved:
i) That the Older Adult Strategy Final Report, as attached to Community Services
Department report CSD-09-071, be received; and,
ii) That a final decision regarding the potential closing of Rockway Senior Centre be
deferred until the Community services Committee meeting scheduled for March 8,
2010, to allow further dialogue with the stakeholders; and
iii) That staff provide Council with detailed information regarding the impact on the 2010
budget of the potential closing of Rockway Senior Centre by January 18, 2010; and
further,
iv) That in the interim, a group of citizens and staff be appointed to consult with older
adult population to advise on the transition of programs from Rockway Senior Centre
to alternate locations, and consider the issue of a `gathering place'.
Over the next months staff entered into significant dialogue with citizens, user groups and
Neighbourhood Associations regarding the transition of programs from Rockway to alternate
locations. However, although staff believed that there was capacity at our other facilities, there
lacked agreement in the community of whether a transition of programs could be completed and
accommodated for without significant loss to Rockway participants. As a result, on February 22,
2010 a motion was brought forward by Council concerning the proposed closing of the Rockway
Seniors Centre. The motion included the following:
WHEREAS over the past number of years, the City of Kitchener, as part of its commitment to
healthy and sustainable communities, has been both updating several long-term strategies and
policies in terms of leisure and recreational delivery to the residents of Kitchener (i.e. the Parks
and Recreation Operational Review, the Leisure Facilities Master Plan, the Older Adult Strategy
4-4
Staff Re ort
~ITCH~I`r?E~ X01111'1']I1111~~'$E1'V1[QS~~pQI'~IT?~Q1~ w~+w.kitthenerca
and the Youth Strategy), and has also been reviewing how to most effectively utilize its facilities
based on facility availability during certain times of day; and
WHEREAS our research and Older Adult Strategy has shown and input from our residents has
confirmed that we should strengthen our delivery model by further building upon or transitioning
to neighbourhood community centres that serve as community resource centres and provide
programming for all age groups; and,
WHEREAS Kitchener Council, after hearing from many residents, recognizes that while a lack
of consensus on the future of older adult programming exists, pursuing staff's initial
recommendation at this time is not in the best community interest and that additional time to
further study enhanced levels of service for older adults would be in the best interest of our
community;
BE IT NOW RESOLVED:
i) That ongoing efforts with respect to the closure of the Rockway Seniors Centre
be terminated; and,
ii) That the City continue working with neighbourhood associations and older adult
groups towards co-ordinating and offering programming for all ages in our
facilities throughout the community; and,
iii) That staff prepare a report about any maintenance and/or capital requirements
and future maintenance necessary in the short-term for the ongoing operations of
the Rockway Seniors Centre facility; and further,
iv) That staff do a feasibility study and business case analysis, including public
consultation and participant involvement, to look at the long-term use of the
Rockway Seniors Centre site for the provision of older adult service delivery and
possible other uses.
This report provides information on item iii) and iv) of the motion, and gives a summary of short-
term capital requirements recommended for the current operations of the facility, as per an
independent facility assessment. It comments further on the minimum work that should be
completed in the short term, ensuring that the current needs of programs, that continue to
operate at the facility, are met.
REPORT:
Facility Background
The Rockway Seniors Centre facility was constructed Circa 1950. The last major renovation to
the facility occurred in the late 1970's when it was converted into a seniors centre. The building
was originally designed as a bus depot and, although more passive senior programming could
be accommodated, it was not purpose-designed as a seniors' recreation facility.
A recent independent audit conducted on the facility shows that the building as an entity has
been well maintained and cared for by staff. Much like other Recreation Facilities and
Community Centres run by the City, this facility has been on a regular maintenance program
throughout its lifetime. The facility systems (e.g. roof, HVAC, elevator, sump etc.) are reviewed
at least annually and are repaired or replaced when necessary, given budget resources.
4-5
Staff Re ort
~ITCH~I`r?E~ X01111'1']I1111~~'$E1'V1[QS~~pQI'~IT?~Q1~ w~+w.kitthenerca
Understanding that this is an aging facility, considerable capital investment is being
recommended by staff and the consultant within the next five year period if it is to be sustained
as a senior centre. The majority of the capital expenditures are a result of inherent site
conditions as well as a need to adapt to current code requirements, and not a result of lack of
care and maintenance over the years.
Capital Requirements of the Rockway Centre
Facilities Management staff enlisted IRC Building Sciences Group Inc. to coordinate a facility
assessment of Rockway Centre to: i) review all major capital components of the building, ii) to
determine the overall general condition of the facility and its components, and iii) to provide
recommendations for replacement/repair complete with budget estimates. Repair items were
listed and prioritized into three categories including:
i) immediate, representing items of structural significance, life safety significance or a
liability;
ii) recommended, representing work that is required within the short-term (5 year
period) to maintain ongoing operations and achieve basic standard for occupancy of
the building; and
iii) optional, representing repair items that can be considered as aesthetic or technical
upgrades in comparison to the existing construction.
It is important to note that at the time of the consultant's report, no items were listed as an
immediate priority, representing items of structural significance, life safety significance or as a
liability. Based on the report from IRC, the estimated costs of priority items identified as
recommended was $1,453,000. The estimated costs associated with priority items identified
as optional was $307,000. These costs exclude HST, construction contingency, and design
and engineering fees.
Five areas were identified as potential concerns
Drainage; ii) Soil Contamination; iii) Barrier Free
Kitchen. Below is a summary of each area.
at this facility and included: i) Foundation
Access; iv) the Elevator system; and v) the
Foundation Drainage
A high water table level at the Rockway Centre site in relation to the foundation level has
resulted in ongoing water ingress into the building's basement, causing mild to severe water
damage. Staff has made every effort to remediate the problem including; i) the installation of a
significant sump pump/filtration system, ii) regular monitoring of water levels and filtration
changes, iii) remediation efforts from the interior of the building, and iv) re-direction of rain
leaders away from the foundation. The facility audit report recommends the implementation of a
foundation drainage system and a groundwater control system to alleviate pressure and flow
around the foundation. This work would require extensive excavation around the perimeter of
the building and installation of a new underground drainage system. The estimated budget to
implement the foundation drainage and groundwater control system is $575,000.
Soil Contamination
Initially, given past use of the facility as a bus depot, it was thought that the surrounding soil
could be contaminated and would have to be removed if any excavation work was completed to
deal with the facility foundation and site drainage. The soil removal would likely incur higher
costs because appropriate environmental measures would have to be taken during its disposal.
4-6
Staff Re ort
~ITCH~I`r?E~ X01111'1']~1111~~'$E1'V1[QS~~pQ~'~~T?~Q1~ w~+w.kitthenerca
The necessary site work has since been completed to see if there was any soil contamination.
Where soil samples were taken on the site, no significant contamination was found.
Barrier-Free Access
The current facility has many accessible features already in place however the impending
Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (AODA) will necessitate further, more stringent
requirements. The largest of the exterior upgrades would include the construction of a barrier
free entrance at the south side of the building complete with ramps, automated doors, etc.
In addition to the exterior upgrades, components on the interior of the building noted not to meet
the requirements for barrier-free design included narrow doors within paths of egress to fire
exits, an undersized accessible washroom, and non-accessible service counters.
The estimated cost to address accessibility and barrier free issues at the facility, as outlined in
the consultant's report, is approximately $262,000.
The Elevator System
Irrespective of the AODA legislation, the existing elevator does not meet current building code
requirements. The current elevator in this building has a capacity of 2000 pounds with a door
width of 36" and can not be modified to meet current code requirements. The facility
assessment recommends the construction of a new elevator shaft on the outside of the building
for an accessible elevator unit which would accommodate for an elevator with a capacity of
2500 pounds and a door width of 42", which would meet code. The estimated cost to complete
this recommended work is $300,000.
The Kitchen
The main kitchen and some major appliances appear to date from the late 1970's. The kitchen
grease rated exhaust hood does not conform to current codes for fire protection and a major
overhaul of the entire kitchen is recommended to bring it to standard acceptable for this type of
facility. The estimated costs for these recommended upgrades are $100,000.
Other Recommended Repair Items
The above five areas were identified in the report as major concerns for this facility. There are
other incidental items to be considered over the next five years, with cost estimated totalling
$216, 000.
Next Steps
The majority of what is recommended in the consultant's report represents work that, in their
opinion, should be completed within the next five year period if the facility is to continue to act as
a seniors centre. Before investing significant capital dollars in the facility however, staff is
suggesting that we determine the long term use of the facility, through a feasibility study and
business case, as requested by Council. Staff will be in the position of initiating the feasibility
study and business case late spring 2011. The estimated time of completion would be March
2012, considering that it takes approximately eight to ten months to complete a study like this
including developing the terms of reference, hiring a consultant and completing the necessary
community consultation and work.
The most significant issue with the facility currently is the ingress of water during periods of wet
weather and thaw and currently staff continues to address water issues as they occur. Although
a delay with the full foundation and drainage repair is being suggested at this point in time, as
4-7
Staff Re ort
~ITCH~I`r?E~ X01111'1']~1111~~'$E1'V1[QS~~pQ~'~~T?~Q1~ w~+w.kitthenerca
an alternative staff is suggesting the implementation of a lower cost short-term solution to help
minimize the impact of the water issues on facility operations.
A short term solution would consist of a further remediation of water ingress from the interior of
the facility and cost approximately $120,000. While this solution will delay the need to complete
the full repair and allow for the continued operation of programs and services, the source
problem will not be addressed and staff will be required to continue to monitor water levels and
filter changes. Also, staff will not be able to complete finishing work in the basement (e.g. wall
finished and flooring replacement) until the water issue has been remediated at its source.
While this short term fix does not address the issue at its source, staff feels it is the best
recommendation until we can determine whether this facility supports future program needs.
Once the needs assessment and business case is completed, Council can consider the
recommendations from the report brought forward in conjunction with the facility capital
requirements outlined in this report.
ALIGNMENT WITH CITY OF KITCHENER STRATEGIC PLAN:
Community Priority: Quality of Life "Our shared vision is for Kitchener to be a community that
invests in maintaining basic services, in addition to amenities such as
community centres, museums, theatres, art galleries, and leisure
facilities, even if that means paying higher taxes."
Foundation: Efficient and Effective Government
Goal: Public Sector Leadership
Strategic Direction: Promote continuous improvement to ensure corporate policies, processes
and systems are sustainable, innovative and adaptable.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:
$120,000 + applicable taxes
To be funded from the Facilities Management Capital Account for a short term solution to water
ingress remediation.
$40,000 + applicable taxes
To be funded from the Community Services Feasibilities and Master Plans Account for a
feasibility study and business case.
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT:
The feasibility study and business case analysis, to look at the long-term use of the Rockway
Seniors Centre site for the provision of older adult service delivery and possible other uses, will
include general public consultation, as well as stakeholder and participant involvement.
CKNOWLEDGED BY: Jeff Willmer, Deputy CAO, Community Services
4-8