Phase 1 Renovations to Toronto City Hall

- Recommended Actions in Response to Office

Consolidation Sub-Committee Motions and

Additional Budget Requirements

The Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee recommends that:

(1)the six existing washrooms located on the second floor be renovated and additional funds in the amount of $14,200.00 be allocated for this purpose;

(2)the glass replacement to prevent sound spilling from Committee Room No.1 into adjacent hallways be approved and funds in the amount of $18,200.00 be allocated for this purpose;

(3)the funds in the amount of $18,000.00 be allocated to renovate the Glass House and two adjoining rooms located on the underground parking level of City Hall to accommodate the Council drivers in one location;

(4)when renovations to the Glass House and two adjoining rooms located in the underground parking level of City Hall are undertaken, such renovations allow for staff to observe pedestrian and vehicular traffic, i.e., no physical obstructions to obscure the view of staff be put in place, for security reasons;

(5)funding for the renovations be provided from the Capital Account for Transition Projects; and

(6)the Corridors located on the second floor at City Hall be renamed to reflect their geographical location i.e., Bay Street, Dundas Street, Queen Street, and University Avenue.

The Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee reports, for the information of Council, having requested the Commissioner of Corporate Services to submit a detailed report directly to Council for its meeting scheduled to be held on May 11, 1999, on the amount of swing space that is currently being rented to date, such report to also include the cost in regard thereto.

The Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee submits the following communication (April 30, 1999) from the City Clerk:

Recommendations:

The Budget Committee on April 30, 1999, recommended to the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee and Council, the adoption of the recommendations of the Corporate Services Committee embodied in the communication (April 22, 1999) from the City Clerk, subject to:

(1)adding the following:

"that when renovations to the Glass House and two adjoining rooms located in the underground parking level of City Hall are undertaken, such renovations allow for staff to observe pedestrian and vehicular traffic, i.e., no physical obstructions to obscure the view of staff be put in place, for security reasons"; and

(2)funding for the renovations be from the Capital Account for Transition Projects.

The Budget Committee further reports, for the information of the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee, having requested that the Office Consolidation Sub-Committee appear before the Budget Committee at its next meeting on May 25, 1999, to answers Members questions with regard to the status of renovations to City Hall.

Background:

The Budget Committee had before it a report (April 22, 1999) from the City Clerk advising that the Corporate Services Committee on April 19, 1999, recommended to the Budget Committee and Council, the adoption of Recommendations Nos. (1), (2), (3) and (5) of the Office Consolidation Sub-Committee embodied in the communication (April 13, 1999) from the City Clerk, viz:

"(1)the six existing washrooms located on the 2nd floor be renovated and additional funds in the amount of $14,200.00 be allocated for this purpose;

(2)glass replacement to prevent sound spilling from Committee Room No. 1 into adjacent hallways be approved and funds in the amount of $18,200.00 be allocated for this purpose;

(3)the funds in the amount of $18,000.00 be allocated to renovate the Glass House and two adjoining rooms located on the underground parking level of City Hall to accommodate the Council drivers in one location;

(5)the Meeting Rooms be renamed to reflect the corridor in which they are situated."

Councillor Ron Moeser, Chair, Office Consolidation Sub-Committee appeared before the Budget Committee in connection with the foregoing matter.

--------

(Communication dated April 22, 1999, addressed to

theBudget Committee from the City Clerk)

Recommendations:

The Corporate Services Committee on April 19, 1999, recommended to the Budget Committee and Council, the adoption of Recommendations Nos. (1), (2), (3) and (5) of the Office Consolidation Sub-Committee embodied in the communication (April 13, 1999) from the City Clerk, viz:

"(1)the six existing washrooms located on the second floor be renovated and additional funds in the amount of $14,200.00 be allocated for this purpose;

(2)glass replacement to prevent sound spilling from Committee Room No.1 into adjacent hallways be approved and funds in the amount of $18,200.00 be allocated for this purpose;

(3)the funds in the amount of $18,000.00 be allocated to renovate the Glass House and two adjoining rooms located on the underground parking level of City Hall to accommodate the Council drivers in one location; and

(5)the Meeting Rooms be renamed to reflect the corridor in which they are situated."

The Corporate Services Committee reports, for the information of the Budget Committee, having:

(1)referred Recommendation No. (4), embodied in the communication (April 13, 1999) from the City Clerk, back to the Office Consolidation Sub-Committee for further consideration; and

(2)requested the Office Consolidation Sub-Committee to:

(i)give consideration to the problem of the constant banging of doors in Committee Rooms Nos. 1 and 2 on the second floor at City Hall, during Committee meetings;

(ii)review the question of access for physically challenged individuals to the committee rooms located on the second floor;

(iii)report to the Corporate Services Committee respecting the disposition of funds established by the City of Toronto from the sale of the Langstaff Jail to make City Hall accessible; and

(iv)review the situation respecting Members of Council accessing the official parking area at City Hall and the problems associated with the steel doors in that area.

Background:

The Corporate Services Committee on April19, 1999, had before it a communication (April13,1999) from the City Clerk advising that the Office Consolidation Sub-Committee, during its consideration of a report (April 9, 1999) from the Commissioner of Corporate Services, entitled "Phase 1 Renovations to Toronto City Hall - Recommended Actions in Response to Office Consolidation Sub-Committee Motions and Additional Budget Requirements", recommended to the Corporate Services Committee and the Budget Committee that:

(1)the six existing washrooms located on the second floor be renovated and additional funds in the amount of $14,200.00 be allocated for this purpose;

(2)glass replacement to prevent sound spilling from Committee Room No. 1 into adjacent hallways be approved and funds in the amount of $18,200.00 be allocated for this purpose;

(3)the funds in the amount of $18,000.00 be allocated to renovate the Glass House and two adjoining rooms located on the underground parking level of City Hall to accommodate the Council drivers in one location;

(4)the western square Councillor's Corridor be renamed as Corridor "D", and the "C" reception area be renamed Reception "C and D"; and

(5)the Meeting Rooms be renamed to reflect the corridor in which they are situated.

--------

(Communication dated April 13, 1999, addressed to the

Corporate Services Committee and the Budget

Committee from the City Clerk)

Recommendations:

The Office Consolidation Sub-Committee recommends that:

(1)the six existing washrooms located on the second floor be renovated and additional funds in the amount of $14,200.00 be allocated for this purpose;

(2)glass replacement to prevent sound spilling from Committee Room No. 1 into adjacent hallways be approved and funds in the amount of $18,200.00 be allocated for this purpose;

(3)the funds in the amount of $18,000.00 be allocated to renovate the Glass House and two adjoining rooms located on the underground parking level of City Hall to accommodate the Council drivers in one location;

(4)the western square Councillor's Corridor be renamed as Corridor "D", and the "C" reception area be renamed Reception "C and D";

(5)the Meeting Rooms be renamed to reflect the corridor in which they are situated.

The Sub-Committee reports for the information of the Budget Committee and Corporate Services Committee having requested the Commissioner of Corporate Services:

(1)to report further on overall parking policy for all the Civic Centres and egress options for the employee parking at City Hall; and

(2)to further report on the feasibility of upgrading the East and West Tower elevator system to improve access to the Council Chamber, at an approximate cost of $80,000.00.

Background:

The Sub-Committee had before it the report (April 9, 1999) from the Commissioner of Corporate Services regarding Phase I Renovations to Toronto City Hall - Recommended Actions in Response to Office Consolidation Sub-committee Motions and Additional Budget Requirements.

The Sub-Committee's recommendations are noted above.

--------

(Report dated April 9, 1999, addressed to the

Office Consolidation Sub-Committee from the

Commissioner of Corporate Services)

Purpose:

To recommend actions to follow-up on the Phase 1 renovations to City Hall in response to motions adopted by the Office Consolidation Sub-Committee and to identify additional budget requirements.

Source of Funds:

Funds in the amount of approximately $50,400.00 will be required to implement the changes necessary to complete the renovations recommended in this report. An additional $80,000.00 will be required if additional upgrades to the existing East and West Tower elevators to provide better access to the Council Chamber are endorsed. These costs could be accommodated within the $10.5million earmarked in the 1999 Capital Budget for Facilities and Real Estate Division amalgamation initiatives, once the budget is approved by City Council.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that the following actions and additional funding requests pertaining to Phase one of the City Hall renovations be endorsed:

(1)Action A:That the six existing washrooms located on the second floor be renovated and funds in the amount of $14,200.00 be allocated for this purpose.

(2)Action B:That glass replacement to prevent sound spilling from Committee Room No. 1 into adjacent hallways be approved and funds in the amount of $18,200.00 be allocated for this purpose.

(3)Action C:That funds in the amount of $18,000.00 be allocated to renovate the Glass House and two adjoining transportation rooms located on the underground parking level of City Hall to accommodate the Council drivers in one location.

(4)Action D:That the new wayfinding signage system on the second floor which designated the corridors to Councillors offices as "Streets A, B and C" not be modified.

(5)Action E:That the Commissioner of Corporate Services report back on an overall parking policy for all the Civic Centres and egress options for the employee parking at City Hall.

(6)Action F:That the Commissioner of Corporate Services report back on the feasibility of upgrading the East and West Tower elevator system to improve access to the Council Chamber, at an approximate cost of $80,000.00.

Background:

The Office Consolidation Sub-Committee on March 10, 1999, requested the Commissioner of Corporate Services to report back to the Sub-Committee on various minor design modifications requested respecting the completion of the Phase 1 City Hall renovations project; and to identify additional budget requirements.

Discussion:

The Facilities and Real Estate Division Project Team analyzed the design modifications requested by the Sub-Committee, in terms of whether they are technically feasible and what the cost implications are. The relevant issues along with recommended actions and additional funding requirements are discussed below.

(1)Second Floor Existing Washrooms

Motion:The Sub-Committee deferred consideration of the Scope of Work-Washrooms and requested a further report on the Cost of Options.

Comment:

Prior to the renovations to the second floor of City Hall taking place, there were six existing washrooms in the inner East and West Tower corridors. Funding to renovate these washrooms was not included in the Phase 1 scope of work. Giving these washrooms a minimal facelift in keeping with the appearance of newly renovated second floor will require minor work, including repainting washroom ceilings and stalls, replacing small mirrors with new larger mirrors and installing some new hardware, at a total cost of $14,200.00. This renovation will take approximately two weeks.

Recommended Action:

Action A:That the six existing washrooms located on the second floor be renovated and additional funds in the amount of $14,200.00 be allocated for this purpose.

(2)Reduce Sound Transference from Committee Room No. 1 into Adjacent Hallways

Motion:The Sub-Committee requested the Commissioner of Corporate Services to report back to the Sub-Committee on the measures to prevent sound spilling from Committee Room No. 1 into adjacent hallways; such report to identify possible funding sources.

Comment:

Reducing the sound transference from Committee Room No. 1 into adjacent hallways will require the replacement and upgrading of the room's existing original glazed windows with thicker tempered and laminated glazing and checking the sound baffles above the ceiling. Sound transference will be reduced along the new glazing although not along the doors. The renovation will take approximately four weeks lead time plus two weeks installation, with an associated cost of $18,200.00.

Recommended Action:

Action B:That glass replacement to prevent sound spilling from CommitteeRoomNo.1into adjacent hallways be approved and funds in the amount of $18,200.00 be allocated for this purpose.

(3)Glass House and Council Transportation Rooms

Motion:The Sub-Committee requested the Commissioner of Corporate Services to report further on the Glass House Renovations for Limousine Drivers, as well as cost and timing.

Comment:

There are currently eight Council drivers using the two existing transportation rooms behind the Glass House located on the underground parking level of City Hall. Prior to amalgamation, there were five drivers using these two small rooms and after amalgamation three more drivers moved from Metro Hall. With the relocation of the Mayor and all Councillors to City Hall, there is a functional need to consolidate space for the Council drivers at one location at City Hall. Combining the Glass House and the two adjoining rooms into one larger unit will better accommodate the drivers' requirements.

The design fees, demolition, painting, carpet installation, installation of data and electrical services and HVAC modification will take approximately three weeks, at a cost of $18,000.00.

Recommended Action:

Action C:That funds in the amount of $18,000.00 be allocated to renovate the Glass House and two adjoining rooms located on the underground parking level of City Hall to accommodate the Council drivers in one location.

(4)Second Floor Signage - Streets A, B and C

Motions:The Sub-Committee requested the Commissioner of Corporate Services to report back to the Sub-Committee on the design, location and layout of the wayfinding signage for the Councillors' corridors - Street A, B, and C.

The Sub-Committee requested the Commissioner of Corporate Services to report back to the Sub-Committee on the cost and implementation of altering the laneway signage on the south side of the Councillors' corridors to include a pathway titled Street D.

Comment:

The wayfinding system developed and implemented for the second floor Councillors' offices was based on a "street" concept, corresponding to the three distinct zones of Councillors' offices along the north, west/south-west and east/south-east sides of the second floor. Each of the three streets is entered by way of its own corresponding reception area located at the entrance to each street.

Altering the signage on the south side of the Councillors' corridors to include a pathway titled "Street D" would not be feasible without having a significant impact on the Mayor's offices and Councillors' two south reception areas.

The consultants on the project who included Karo, Kuwabara Payne McKenna Blumberg Architects and Paul Arthur of PAVL collectively recommend that the wayfinding system as implemented not be modified, as indicated in their submissions attached as Appendix "A".

Recommended Action:

Action D:That the new wayfinding signage system on the second floor which designated the corridors to Councillors' offices as "Streets A, B and C" not be modified.

(5)Parking Policy and Employee Parking

Motion:The Sub-Committee requested the Commissioner of Corporate Services to report on work with the Parking Authority of Toronto for accessing employee parking.

Background:

Staff of the Facilities and Real Estate Division have had numerous discussions and met with the Parking Authority about:

(i)options for the overall parking policy at all Civic Centres; and

(ii)the egress options for the employee parking at City Hall.

Overall Parking Policy:

This policy is currently under development and will be presented to the Property Management Committee in May 1999 prior to presentation at the Office Consolidation Sub-Committee.

Egress Options at City Hall:

As a result of the discussions with the Parking Authority, it is apparent that some detailed work is required to resolve compatibility issues with proximity card readers (between the City system and the Parking Authority's new system) for egress from the employee parking lot at City Hall. The overall parking policy will present options for the issues of corporate pool cars and ultimate responsibility for management of the employee parking area which may impact on the egress options. Until these issues are resolved, any expenditure on parking gates and anti-passback controllers for a different egress from the employee parking area may be unnecessary and is therefore not recommended.

The project has therefore been divided into two phases:

Phase One work (scheduled completion April 30, 1999) involves:

(a)Providing an IN gate at the entrance of the Taxi Tunnel. Alongside this IN gate will be a pedestal housing a long range proximity card reader and an intercom.

(b)Connecting the existing IN overhead door to function in conjunction with the card reader for 24 hour access when the overhead door is down (11:00 PM - 7:00 AM).

(c)Providing an intercom station near the handicapped lift.

(d)Repainting the Official Parking Garage signage to turn the old entrance into the new exit and vice versa.

(e)Providing a new high speed roll-up overhead door with a door contact at the Official Parking entrance. A parking pedestal housing a long range proximity card reader and an intercom will be placed by the entrance before this overhead door. Along with this door will be the necessary safeties, loop detectors, and associated hardware.

(f)Providing a new high speed roll-up overhead door with a door contact at the Official Parking exit. This door will open automatically upon sensing vehicular movement inside the Official garage. No card read out will be necessary.

(g)Providing an OUT gate at the Taxi Tunnel exit. Alongside this EXIT gate will be a pedestal housing a long range proximity card reader and an intercom.

(h)Connecting the existing OUT overhead door to function in conjunction with the card reader for 24 hour egress when the overhead door is down (11:00 PM - 7:00 AM).

Phase Two work involves:

(a)Providing a new employee parking vehicular exit.

(b)Closing the existing employee parking vehicular exit.

Phase Two is being coordinated with the Parking Authority. Its progress will be reported at the next Office Consolidation Sub-Committee meeting.

From April 15 to April 30, 1999, we will be taking and producing all of the employee access cards. At this time, we will be posting information about the upcoming upgrades to the Official Garage, Taxi Tunnel, and Employee Parking Garage.

Recommended Action:

Action E:That the Commissioner of Corporate Services report back on overall parking policy for all the Civic Centres and egress options for the employee parking at City Hall.

6.Access to Council Chamber and Second Floor City Hall

Motion:The Sub-Committee requested the Commissioner of Corporate Services to report on access to Council Chamber and the second floor, such report to include:

(a)Volumes during Council Meetings - Upgrade Present Elevators; and

(b)Safety Issues (Fire Alarm Drill), Stairs.

Comment:

(a) There are three inner core elevators and four East and West Tower elevators providing access from the basement, first, and second floors to the Council Chamber. The Project Team and Otis Elevator engineers are currently investigating the possibility of upgrading the existing East and West Tower elevator system and signage to provide better access the Council Chamber. Early estimates from Otis Elevator indicate that this modification will cost approximately $80,000.00, as indicated in the memorandum attached as Appendix "B".

In the interim, temporary signs have been installed in the main and second floor lobbies of both the East and West Towers to direct people to the Council Chamber.

(b)Fire alarm drills which include complete evacuation of the building are conducted at City Hall once a year in accordance with the Ontario Fire Code. Notices informing occupants about of the date and time of any drill are posted at least 48 hours in advance. Fire drills apply to the entire building including the second floor and the Council Chamber.

Recommended Actions:

Action F:That the Commissioner of Corporate Services report back on the feasibility of upgrading the East and West Tower elevator system to improve access to the Council Chamber, at an approximate cost of $80,000.00.

Conclusions:

This report responds to items recently raised by the Office Consolidation Sub-Committee following completion of the Phase 1 renovations to City Hall. In most cases, actions are recommended to either fine-tune work already done or undertake additional work resulting from minor design modifications requested by the Sub-Committee. The time required to complete the work along with cost estimates are identified.

Contact Name:

Susanne Borup, Executive Director, Facilities and Real Estate Division, phone 397-4156, fax 397-0825, e-mail SusanneBorup@city.toronto.ca.

____________

Appendix "A"

(1)Memorandum from Karo, March 18, 1999

"Please find the following outline of wayfinding system strategy and our response to the City's request to place Councillors' names on the reverse side of the fin signs:

Karo's mandate from the beginning of this project was to make the areas associated with the renovation of the City Hall more accessible to first-time visitors and the general public, with particular sensitivity to those citizens who are physically and/or cognitively challenged. Our rationale was that if a first-time visitor can effectively find their way to the services and areas they require, then users and staff familiar with the facility and the wayfinding program will surely be able to navigate.

With this in mind, we developed a wayfinding system for the second floor Councillors' offices based on the Street concept, corresponding to the three distinct zones of Councillors' offices along the north, west/south-west and east/south-east sides of the second floor. Each of these three streets is entered via its own corresponding reception area, located at the entrance of each street.

The system works as follows: When a member of the public comes to City Hall looking for a Councillor, a ground floor directory indicates the Councillor's name, Street (A, B or C) and the corresponding office number, such as A14, B35 or C56. They then proceed to the street reception area which acts as a control point of entry for that zone of Councillors' offices. A sub-directory listing the Councillors and their corresponding office number is located at each reception. The wayfinder gains access to the office area and proceeds to the office number that corresponds to their Councillor's name.

As the wayfinder moves from the reception area through the street, they are addressed by a series of "door fins" which indicate the entrance to a particular councillor's office. The office number, Councillor's name, ward name and ward number are indicated on the fin sign. If a wayfinder passes the office number they are trying to locate, they turn around and come back to the office number they require. The office number is repeated on a disk mounted to the glass on the latch side of the door. This method of locating a Councillor's office is also reinforced by the overhead directional signage which directs wayfinders to particular office numbers and streets.

The majority of the fin signs are single sided because, in most locations, the reverse side of the fin backs on to the glazing of the neighbouring Councillor's office. The reverse side was intentionally left blank so that it would not confuse wayfinders as to who belongs to which office. As you are aware, accessibility issues relating to signage dictate that, among other things, room identification signage must be consistently located adjacent to the room entrance, typically on the latch side of the door. If the signage were located on both sides of the fins, the clarity of the system would immediately break down and wayfinders would become confused, frustrated and disoriented, which will lead to more wayfinding related question being directed to the Councillors' office staff.

Locating the Councillors by office number was the only option available to us. Councillors cannot be organized by name, in alphabetical order, due to the temporary and fluctuating nature of their office locations (they shift every election). Nor have they been located by ward number because citizens rarely know which ward number they live in. As a result of these and the lottery system for "equitable" locating of Councillors, the wayfinding system must relate to the only permanent item - the office number.

Thus, the system instructs wayfinders to look for an office number, not a Councillor's name. Staff should know the office number of the Councillor they are looking for. If they miss an office number, they can either look up to suspended directional signage, or to the next office and observe which number they are at. Staff should be informed how Councillors office locations have been allocated and instructed to look for them by office number, not name.

Our system was carefully thought out and the necessary information has been consistently confirmed at key points along the way. It was fully approved prior to implementation and is fully in accord with the best wayfinding principles.

For the reasons cited in this memo, namely the confusion which will arise from conflicting messages and sign clutter, as well as the incurring of unnecessary expense, the consultants involved (Karo, Shirley Blumberg (KPMB Architect), Paul Arthur (PAVL) and Geoff Eden (City of Toronto Accessibility Committee) collectively recommend that the fin signage remain as implemented.

We would be pleased to make a presentation of the system, if required. Should you have any questions or comments about the above, please contact me directly at (416) 927-7094 ext.238."

(2)Memorandum from Karo, March 23, 1999

"... Further to your request, please find the following regarding the addition of D Street to the second floor wayfinding system. As you know, A, B and C Streets all correspond to three actual, physical spaces which are architecturally determined. Each of these areas has its own entrance, reception area, corresponding offices, colour code and signage. If there were four distinct areas, with their own entrances, occupied by Councillors offices, then there would be a D Street.

The request for the following cost and scheduling ramifications for the addition of D Street illustrates a basic misunderstanding of the wayfinding system and underscores the need for an explanation of the system.

To create D Street, the City would have to create a new distinct area on the second floor with its own entrance, reception and Councillors offices, and then link it to the other streets. Architecturally this would be feasible if the City wishes to relocate the Mayor's office. A fourth colour would then be applied to this area and the colour bar of the signage. Existing directional signage throughout the renovated areas would have to be modified to accommodate the addition of D Street. New signage for the area would be based on the existing signage designs in place in the other streets.

Costs: We cannot comment on the additional construction cost, project management or architectural fees which would be incurred due to a renovation of this type. Signage budgets would be as follows:

Update and replace existing signage:

Sign typeQuantityFabricationInstallation

cost cost

4.1 - Wall Mounted Directional 4$3,600.00 $300.00

4.3 - Atrium Suspended 510,250.002,000.00

4.4 - Wall Mounted Directional 4 4,200.00 800.00

4.6 - Atrium Suspended 4 5,200.00 850.00

Total23,250.003,950.00$27,250.00

Create new signage

Sign typeQuantityFabricationInstallation

cost cost

M.7 Councillors fin 10$10,000.00$2,200.00

3.3 - Reception 1 2,200.00 300.00

4.2 - Suspended Directional 6 12,270.00 2,500.00

5.1 - Street Directory 1 2,000.00 800.00

Miscellaneous Identification 10 2,500.00 350.00

Total 28,970.00 6,450.00$35,420.00

Total Fabrication/Installation$62,670.00

Karo Design and Management$28,000.00

Grand Total $90,670.00"

(3)Fax from Kuwabara Payne McKenna Blumberg Architects, April 7, 1999

"We are familiar with the contents of the two memos dated March 18 and 23, 1999, which were prepared by David Plant of Karo with respect to the addition of street D signage.

This letter is to reiterate that we concur with Karo's comments and recommendations."

(4)Fax from Paul Arthur, PAVL, April 7, 1999

"I have just been apprised today that I am to send you a letter confirming my complete agreement with the content of the two faxes sent to Lawrence, dated March 18 and 23, 1999.

On the subject of the fins, it should not be thought that the solution about the signing of the individual offices was taken hurriedly. Nor was it taken without our asking the designers to provide full-sized mock-ups, even prior to the installation of the fins themselves. It was the unanimous opinion of the architect, the designer, and myself as the City's advisor on wayfinding issues that our joint decision was the only appropriate one.

Quite apart from that observation, however, we were also unanimous in feeling that the solution will be effective.

I do hope that the idea of redeveloping the second floor to accommodate an unnecessary 'street' will go no further."

_________

Appendix "B"

(1)Memorandum from Otis Elevator, April 8, 1999

"In order to provide you with an elevator shuttle(s) in each tower at City Hall, we envision the following.

Otis will supply and install 2 two new sets of hall buttons, one at the main level and one at the C level. The new set of hall buttons at the lobby level will have a key switch. When the keys switch is turned on, one or two of the elevators will only serve the lobby and clevel and only respond to calls made on one of the new sets of hall buttons. When the key switch is turned off, the elevators will run normally, serving all floors and the new sets of hall buttons will be inactive. The building will have to be provide appropriate signs for the public regarding the operation of the elevators.

Please note that we need a little more time for our engineers to determine if this is even reasonably possible and that the best budget pricing I can provide at this time is about $40,000.00 per tower."