HomeMy WebLinkAboutCRPS-06-008 - Mayfair Hotel Elevator Replacement Progress ReportReport To: Councillor B. Vrbanovic, Chair and Members of the Finance
and Corporate Services Committee
Date of Meeting: January 9, 2006
Submitted By: L. Proulx, Director of Facilities Management
Prepared By: L. Proulx, Director of Facilities Management
Ward(s) Involved: One
Date of Report: January 3, 2006
Report No.: CRPS-06-008
Subject: Mayfair Hotel Elevator Replacement Progress Report
RECOMMENDATION:
This report is for information only.
BACKGROUND:
In February 2005, I provided Council with reports CRPS-05-021 and CRPS-05-028
pertaining to the replacement of the elevator at the Mayfair building and recommended
a budget of $312,000. to implement the replacement of the elevator. It was also
reported that our maintenance cost for the existing elevator was escalating annually.
Council approved the funding and staff proceeded to retain consultants to prepare
specifications for the work. The project was tendered and came in substantially over
budget. Working together with the consultants I was able to trim some items and
reduce the tender to approximately $405,000. Approximately $30,000. in consultant
costs have also been incurred. The project over run was due primarily because of
recent revisions to the elevator code, and the need for some additional work on the
structure as the consultants became familiar with the building construction. The elevator
machine room had to be totally rebuilt to comply with the new requirements.
REPORT:
In January 2005, we negotiated with Thiessen Krupp (T.K.) to undertake the inspection
and maintenance for this elevator, as required by the Technical Standards and Safety
Authority (TSSA). Since February 2005, T.K. was able to get a sense of the
maintenance effort and since that time, we were invoiced only $2,605.56 for repairs and
$3,001. for the provision of the inspection service for the year to date. You may recall
that our costs in 2004 were over $15,000. in repairs and service. Based on this
-2-
information and recognizing the significant cost to upgrade the elevator, we called a
representative from T.K. to discuss the risk of delaying the installation of the new
elevator. T.K. gave staff a more positive outlook than the previous maintenance
contractor. The cost to repair has been favourable compared to the trend in the past
four years and T.K. expressed little concern that TSSA could confront the City at any
time. It is their contention that there are other elevators in the City of that vintage and
therefore, TSSA would need to be sweeping broad brush to require the City and many
other owners to replace their elevators expeditiously. T.K. suggests that we could be
ordered to do one upgrade required of the City at another location and it is noted that
this item cost just over $10,000. at Breithaupt Centre. T.K. has indicated that they have
the capability of manufacturing parts as they break and are prepared to assist us in
nursing the elevator for the next while to allow the City more time to decide the fate of
the building.
Council made it very clear that they would prefer to know the ultimate disposition of the
Downtown block as it relates to redevelopment before investing large sums in the
Mayfair Hotel. If the hotel is to remain for the long term, the investment is easier to
justify.
Given a more optimistic outlook by the contractor and appreciating Council's dilemma in
this regard, we have asked the low bidder to hold his price on the elevator upgrade until
April 2006 with a view to review the situation at that time. The contractor has agreed
and therefore, we are now in a position to afford Council more time to deliberate on the
block without this concern, at this time. We propose to keep Council apprised of any
new developments that would cause us to reconsider our present position.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:
No cost at this time.
L. PROULX
DIRECTOR OF FACILITIES MANAGEMENT
G. SOSNOSKI
GENERAL MANAGER OF
CORPORATE SERVICES AND
CITY CLERK