HomeMy WebLinkAboutCRPS-05-028 - Mayfair Elevator Upgrade Proposal
~
Report To:
Date of Meeting:
Submitted By:
Prepared By:
Ward(s) Involved:
Date of Report:
Report No.:
Subject:
Mayor C. Zehr & Members of Council
February 14, 2005
G. Sosnoski, General Manager of Corporate Services and City
Clerk
L. Proulx, Director of Facilities Management
Ward 1
February 10, 2005
CRPS-05-028
RECOMMENDATION:
Mayfair Elevator Upgrade Proposal
For information purposes.
BACKGROUND:
This is further information pursuant to Finance and Corporate Services Committee's request on
February 7, 2005 for a rationale as to the funding source and operating costs for the elevator at
the Mayfair. Concern was also expressed with staff's recommendation on the allocation of
funding from the Economic Development Investment Fund. The General Manager of Financial
Services will be prepared to speak to the latter issue at the February 21 meeting.
REPORT:
Maintenance
At present, we pay a contractor $255.00 per month to inspect the elevator for safety and
ongoing maintenance problems. All materials and labour associated with reoairs are costs over
and above that base orice. As indicated verbally last week, we paid $3,106 in 2001, $4,358 in
2002, $9,768 in 2003 and $15,779 in 2004. We anticipate 2005 to be $16,712. You can see the
rapid escalation of costs with time. I discussed with our contractor the probable cost to maintain
a brand new elevator to compare with our history. He stated that the City would likely pay $255
($3,288/yr) or even less for an all inclusive contract and that this could be sustained probably for
ten years subject to inflation increases. This means that material and labour costs to reolace
oarts would be included in the month Iv fee. This would yield a savings of approximately
$1,300/yr.
.. ./2
- 2 -
Salvaae Oooortunities
KJA Consultants Inc. of Toronto have been advising us on elevators for years. They provided
budget numbers that have been included in our request for funding. I discussed with them the
issue of salvage opportunities given the possibility that the site may be redeveloped in a few
years. Equipment that would possibly be reused include the cab, motor and hoist machinery, the
elevator controller, the governor, rails and buffer. This new elevator proposed in the larger hoist
way is budgeted at $180,000. Usually 60% of this budget is expected to be equipment and 40%
is labour. If we could salvage every piece, we could expect a value of $108,000 less
depreciation. The consultants cautioned about the risk of salvaging. If the elevator code
undergoes revisions which happens from time to time, some components may not be allowed to
be reused. If the design of the new building is substantially different than the building which
received the elevator in the first instance, there may well be physical constraints that prevent the
salvage of some components as well. You need to consider the careful removal of the elevator
at demolition time and the cost of storage until the new facility is constructed. There comes a
point where salvage is relatively impractical in economical terms. No one can make accurate
predictions in future. An assessment is usually done when the factors are in the present or when
the project is imminent. Then we can better assess what today are unknowns.
The earlier staff report also referred to obligations under Bill 125 (Ontarians with Disabilities Act)
and Bill 118 (Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities). Bill 118 will put in place mandatory
accessibility standards with penalties for non-compliance. In speaking with Margaret Sanderson,
Inclusion Services Coordinator, these standards will most likely apply to building elevators, and
any replacement scenario should be proactive in avoiding non-compliance. It is felt that
replacement of the current elevator with one of a similar size utilizing the existing shaft is not
likely to comply, though at this time Bill 118 is before the Legislature and the standards to be
enforced have not been established. Staff, therefore, have recommended a replacement
scenario which provides for an elevator accessible to those persons with disabilities. At the
same time this option also allows more flexibility in terms of its overall use and possible reuse at
a future date.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:
As outlined in report CRPS-05-021 presented at the February 7, 2005 Finance and Corporate
Services Committee meeting as to capital cost, and above as regards maintenance expenses.
L. Proulx, CET, CMM III
Director of Facilities Management