Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCRPS-05-021 - Mayfair Elevator ~ Report To: Date of Meeting: Submitted By: Prepared By: Ward(s) Involved: Date of Report: Report No.: Subject: Councillor B. Vrbanovic and Members of the Finance and Corporate Services Committee February 7,2005 G. Sosnsoki, General Manager of Corporate Services & City Clerk L. Proulx, Director of Facilities Management February 2, 2005 CRPS-05-021 ELEVATOR REPLACEMENT - MAYFAIR RECOMMENDATION: That Council authorize an expenditure of $312,000. from the Economic Development Investment Fund to replace the existing elevator at the Mayfair with a new elevator utilizing the existing exterior shaft at 158 King Street West. BACKGROUND: The current elevator was manufactured and installed circa 1950 and is becoming increasingly problematic in terms of service. The service contractor has indicated that of the 1,164 elevators they service, this is the oldest and therefore the highest risk. The availability of parts is becoming problematic, and of late the City has had some difficulty in obtaining a service contract due to the age of the elevator and related liability issues. In addition, safety concerns have been expressed by KJA Consultants Inc. (the City's elevator consultant) as well as the maintenance service provider. The Mayfair is part of the Centre Block property, the development of which is currently under consideration. At this time no decision has been made on the final disposition of the Mayfair building or the development of the balance of the site. REPORT: The undersigned undertook a review of the current situation late in 2004 and it was determined that the City has two options in terms of replacing the existing elevator as outlined below. Ootion 1 - replacement with elevator of comparable size One option is to provide a new cab and elevator system within the existing elevator shaft, with the cab being of a size identical to the existing. The existing cab is very small and the dimensions of the existing shaft will only allow replacement with a similar sized cab. The replacement cab, like the current one would not provide barrier free access, nor allow the movement of furniture or appliances between floors. In other words a cab of this size is limited entirely to moving people between floors. The size of the cab would also constrain any renovation and development above the ground floor level. The total cost of this option is $209,000. Ootion 2 - The second option, and the recommended one, would involve utilizing an existing exterior elevator shaft at the adjacent City-owned property at 158 King Street West. There is presently a three-storey concrete freight elevator shaft immediately adjacent to the Mayfair elevator. This elevator has been abandoned, and is in need of replacement, but is not required at present as 158 King is not in use. Option 2 would require the shaft to be extended by another three storeys plus a mechanical room above with a short connector between it and the Mayfair elevator shaft which would involve cutting into the firewall and refitting the Mayfair elevator shaft with permanent floors to the new elevator. This option would provide a larger shaft which would accommodate a barrier free elevator as well as additional head room for the handling of larger equipment, furniture and appliances. The cost of this option is $312,000. A diagram showing Option 2 is attached. Analvsis - Ootion 1 Pro -less costly than Option 2 by approximately $103,000.; - would be considered a modification rather than a new installation and as a result certain Elevator Code implications would continue to be acceptable; - it is the easiest and least time consuming replacement option (though the elevator would still be out of operation for a minimum of one month). Con - does not allow the elevator to be barrier free, and as a result would likely not comply with the Ontarians with Disabilities legislation currently before the Legislature; - limits further use of the elevator unit due to the size of the cab. Elevators of this small a dimension have limited utility and could not be easily transferred to another development; - though the elevator could be replaced quicker, it would also require the unit to be out of service for a longer period of time than Option 2, this time estimated at between 4-6 weeks; - elevator has practically no freight capability due to size. Analvsis - Ootion 2 Pro - would allow barrier free access and comply with pending legislation; - would allow for movement of furniture and appliances and allow more flexibility in future development of the Mayfair; - could be relocated to a development elsewhere in the block as the size is not as restrictive as the current cab; - is the least disruptive option in terms of downtime. It is estimated that the elevator would be out of service for 2-3 weeks in order to reconstruct entry doors and create the bridge over the existing elevator shaft. However, the current elevator could be used while the ancillary shaft and new elevator are being con structed. Con - more costly than Option 1; - more extensive modification required which results in the overall project taking longer to complete. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: It is proposed that the expenditure amount be debited from the Economic Development Investment Fund being used for the Centre Block. Ootion 1 Elevator Package Related Installation Work Design and Engineering Services 10% contingency $ 150,000. $ 20,000. $ 20,000. ~ $ 209 000. Ootion 2 Elevator Package Related Installation Work Design and Engineering Services 10% contingency $ 180,000. $ 80,000. $ 26,000. $ 26 000. $ 312.000. COMMUNICATIONS: This report and recommendation has been vetted with Kitchener Housing Inc. which concurs with the recommended option. The matter was also discussed by Corporate Management Team on February 1,2005 and there was general agreement that the City should replace the elevator at this time rather than delay for clearer direction on the future of the Centre Block. It was felt that there is too much risk in delaying replacement, especially given the problems encountered to date in obtaining a service contract. CONCLUSION: If the City decides to do nothing at this time, it would be running the risk of continuing to operate an elevator which is considered by some to be unsafe. Though it at present meets Provincial safety requirements, there is no way of knowing if this will be the case for a short or longer period of time. Parts availability is always a concern, and in the event a part is not available or the Technical Standards Safety Association feels the elevator is unsafe it would have to be shut down while the replacement process is undertaken. This will result in longer down time as the elevator would not continue to be operational while an ancillary shaft is constructed. Notwithstanding the increased cost of Option 2, staff feel that it is the wiser long term investment, providing more redevelopment options and the only one which would comply with barrier free legislation. Laurier Proulx Director of Facilities Management GS/lk C: C. Ladd P. Houston L. Gordon B. Davey / K. Kwiatkowski D. Hergott L. MacDonald