GUELPH – Project bids far in excess of what was budgeted have caused Wellington County council to defer planned upgrades to its waste transfer stations in Rothsay and Elora.
“If there’s no health and safety issues, and we can defer it, it’s likely a good thing,” councillor Dave Turton said during the June 27 committee of the whole meeting.
Council members were discussing a report from a special meeting of the Solid Waste Services (SWS) committee, held on June 18. The report recommended deferring upgrades to the Rothsay waste facility and allocating funds set aside for that project to Elora waste facility upgrades.
The project at the Elora facility – the busier of the two sites – was to include construction of a new scale house and household hazardous waste building, two new weigh scales and other site improvements, including water service and sanitary service upgrades.
The Rothsay site was to get a new scale house, one new weigh scale, and additional site improvements, well installation and septic service.
According to a previous staff report to the SWS Committee, $450,000 was initially allocated for the Rothsay project through the 2021 10-year capital budget, but in 2024 that budget allocation was doubled to $900,000 because of “inflationary trends.”
As previously reported in the Advertiser, the cost of improvements in Elora were estimated at $1.35 million in 2021.
But when both projects went to tender this year, the two submissions received from contractors on June 14 drastically exceeded those cost estimates.
Moorefield-based Roubos Farm Service Ltd. came in with a total bid of almost $3.4 million for the Elora project, and just over $1.7 million for Rothsay. Higher total bids came from Burlington-based Ritestart Limited, at nearly $4.2 million for Elora, and more than $2.35 million for Rothsay.
Councillor Earl Campbell was the first to speak out against the staff recommendation that council award the Elora project to the lower of the two bidders and transfer funding allocated for the Rothsay project to help cover the shortfall.
“I think both of these projects are clearly out of scope based on the pricing that’s come back,” Campbell said.
He suggested deferring the projects, and having them retendered in the spring with a revised scope.
“I just don’t think it’s appropriate that we proceed with this project at this time,” he said.
Councillor Gregg Davidson pointed out that the cost of the projects were not initially “astronomical,” but said “that has changed as we waited for provincial go-aheads.”
He suggested the timing of the tender was poor, because contractors currently have too much work and a shortage of labour.
“Maybe we should hold back and retender this,” Davidson said.
Councillor Shawn Watters agreed with Davidson that the timing might not be optimal to get the best pricing for the projects, but emphasized the importance of maintaining the facilities.
“Waste is not going away; we just need to handle that waste in a more appropriate way,” Watters said.
He agreed deferring the projects might be a good idea.
“Let’s not just go and just spend money,” he said. “Let’s do it in a very succinct and thoughtful way.”
Multiple councillors expressed concern that deferring the projects could end up costing more money in the long run, with James Seeley saying he thinks deferral is the right move, but is mindful of inflationary pressures.
“A year from now, two years from now, it might come back and it might be bigger,” councillor Doug Breen said of the project costs.
But he expressed his support for deferral, not just because of the current high costs of the project, but also to use the opportunity to be more mindful about the services being offered.
“Perhaps rather than encouraging people to be using these transfer stations, we should be using them for business use and that’s it,” Breen said.
Councillor Diane Ballantyne took the idea a step further, suggesting that upgrades to the waste station could be used to promote the circular economy.
“Is there something in this project that may help us understand how we divert and reuse certain pieces of waste?” Ballantyne asked.
Following much discussion, council voted to defeat the motion to proceed with the Elora project.
