Using estimates based on preliminary versus final designs is one of the reasons offered by Centre Wellington officials to explain the latest in a series of cost overruns for construction projects.
On Oct. 12, a special meeting was held to adopt tenders for the reconstruction of Gartshore Street in Fergus, from the Elora Cataract Trail to south of Forfar Street.
Work to bring that section of road up to urban design standards includes replacing ditches with curbs, gutters and storm sewers.
In addition, sidewalks are planned along the east and west sides of Gartshore near the new Summerlea development located east of Gartshore and north of Garafraxa Street.
Managing director of corporate services Dan Wilson said the lowest bid for the project came from Cox Construction at $510,365.
Wilson explained this put the project over budget, which necessitated the special council meeting to approve additional funds and funding sources for the work.
“At the end of the day the total unfunded amount was $106,655,” said Wilson.
Through discussions with staff, Wilson noted there is some “unallocated” gas tax funds available in township reserves.
In addition there was a past capital road project that came in under budget.
Wilson recommended using those funds – about $86,000 – for the Garshore Street reconstruction.
In addition, Wilson said given the benefits of the interconnection of the project with the existing community, funds could be drawn from a fund set up to better connect the community from a pedestrian perspective.
Wilson noted the timing to complete the project is important, as Gartshore is a key detour route during the replacement of the St. David Street (Highway 6) bridge in Fergus early next year.
“It’s important to get this work done now before the other project begins,” said Wilson.
Managing director of infrastructure services Colin Baker said the scope of the project includes sidewalks on both sides of Gartshore to improve “walkability.”
He said with the new subdivision it is expected there will be more people walking in the area, which links the Forfar area to both the park and the Elora Cataract Trail.
The current project only brings the east sidewalk south to the business Interpump, but Baker stated future plans will extend that sidewalk south to Garafraxa.
Baker noted the work is being funded by the Summerlea developer, Wellington County and the township.
The fixed costs of the developer’s share relates to work to be done along the Gartshore frontage of its development.
Wellington County is picking up a portion of the road rebuild as Gartshore Street is also Wellington Road 43.
“We are working closely with community services to accommodate improvements to Forfar Park,” Baker said.
Work includes creation of a 34-space paved parking lot which replaces a gravel pad that accommodates about 10 cars.
Long-range plans for the park include a washroom building which will serve both the Sports field and the trailway, Baker said.
Councillor Kirk McElwain was surprised the municipality had gas tax funds “just sitting there” and asked if there was more available for other projects.
Wilson said the remaining funds are already allocated for other capital projects.
Councillor Fred Morris asked about the proposed 34 parking spaces to be constructed in Forfar Park.
CAO Andy Goldie said the number was determined based on its use as a trailhead for the Elora Cataract Trail, as well as the proposal to include two practice soccer fields at the park.
Goldie said there is an existing shortage of space at Forfar Street, resulting in vehicles being parked along the side of the road or on nearby streets.
“We are trying to accommodate future growth of the area and use of the trail,” he said.
Baker said work at Forfar Park is part of the recreation master plan that will transform the ball diamond into two soccer fields.
Councillor Mary Lloyd said she was surprised the plan was to install sidewalks on both sides of Gartshore.
“To me, it is a little bit of overkill … unless plans are also to install sidewalks on the east side of Gartshore leading up to the Summerfields development.”
She noted there will be a number of people crossing Gartshore from the development and asked if a designated road crossing was planned.
Baker said a few locations are being investigated along Forfar. At the Elora Cataract Trail crossing, plans are to upgrade the crossing to one similar to the Water Street crossing across from O’Brien Park in Elora.
Baker noted sidewalks are to be installed on Garafraxa Street linking to Gartshore.
Morris asked if this was a new standard – to have sidewalks on both sides of the street.
Baker explained the standard for arterial roads was to have both sidewalks.
Councillor Don Fisher asked why the developer contribution was a fixed number rather than a formula based on overall cost.
Goldie said the contribution for phase one takes into account parkland being donated by the developer (in a future project phase) that is over and above the required donation.
Councillor Stephen Kitras asked if the Summerfields development had access to the trail other than via Gartshore Street.
Baker said there is a park lot within the development which also has access to the trail.
Kitras then asked if both sidewalks on Gartshore were actually needed.
Baker said the sidewalks would benefit the community at large, especially when the adjacent road network is becoming more urban.
“We want it to make it more usable and safe for cyclists and pedestrians,” said Baker.
Because the project is over budget and there are future plans for the property, Kitras asked if part of the project could be scaled back.
Baker clarified part of the work on Gartshore – the underground conduit – is to provide space to extend municipal services to the park at a future point.
Morris said, “This is probably the third or fourth project in the past few months which have had overrun components to them.
“Perhaps an explanation is needed as to why this is happening at this point in time.”
Morris said it the project appears to be an afterthought.
“Why are these projects popping up as afterthoughts and not part of the project plans from the beginning?”
Baker said discussions with developers first began in 2012. He agreed it would be useful to have a document to lay out requirements for all sides.
“I think we are getting close to that with our master plans (yet to be finalized),” said Baker.
Of particular note, Baker said, the transportation master plan will help identify external projects that can be brought forward before negotiations begin with developers.
As to the cost overruns, Baker said as the subdivision agreement was being finalized, the project was only at a very preliminary level of design.
“Therefore the cost estimates entered into last year’s budget were based on those concepts and designs.”
However, Baker said as the municipality moved to the “nuts and bolts” of the design, things can change.
“Unfortunately it comes down to basing cost estimates on a preliminary design rather than the detailed design,” said Baker.
Wilson clarified staff members are also concerned with the cost overruns.
In addition to unforeseen costs, “we are seeing increased costs across the board, particularly with road works and water/sewer,” Wilson added.
He said quite a few municipalities are facing the same situation.
While the township does collect development charges that can be applied towards parkland, that typically is for new parkland projects, Goldie said.
What is being proposed now, is the improvement of an existing park.
Morris said he has issues with making agreements with a developer before knowing the scope of a project – “Where is the logic in that?”
Mayor Kelly Linton said the master plans being developed should provide the township with a better idea of the scope of various projects ahead of time.
He stated that is part of the township taking a more proactive approach.
Goldie said one issue related to this particular development is that it is being phased in over a number of years, and developers will be providing an overcompensation for sidewalks in a future phase.
Kitras said the public is showing a lot of concern regarding cost overruns and he suggested the township should reconsider the project. He again advocated scaling the project down or reconsidering the project at the present time.
Council eventually agreed to the original recommendations in a 6-1 recorded vote.
Kitras voted against the proposal as it stood, while the remainder of council voted in favour.
