Council has approved spending nearly $40,000 to remove mould from the basement of the municipal office here, while continuing to explore long-term solutions to the water infiltration that caused the mould issues.
Council voted at the July 23 meeting to accept the tender of Wayne and Harold Smith Construction for $39,750 for the mould removal. One other bid, for $53,550, was received from BioSweep Environmental.
While initially recommending council accept the higher bid out of concern the lower bidder would not be able to complete the project, which includes removal, storage and cleaning of records contained in the basement, CAO Patty Sinnamon advised council further discussion with the contractor indicates they can do the required work at the bid price.
She noted neither company can do the required page-by-page cleaning of the documents, which would have to be done by another company. Sinnamon said having the records copied and digitized is probably the best solution.
Council also dealt with a report from engineering firm R.J. Burnside and Associates on the cause of, and potential solutions for, the basement water leaks in the building, which was constructed in 1992.
The engineers concluded the source of the moisture is groundwater flow from a shallow unconfined aquifer, along with surface run-off and discharge from roof downspouts draining toward the foundation.
“The fact that water is entering the basement at many locations indicates the entire foundation, including the basement floor, was not adequately waterproofed at the time of original construction,” the engineering report states.
The engineers recommend excavating around the building and constructing a foundation drainage system and installing a new concrete pump chamber with sump pumps outside the building to pump water from the chamber to the ditch at the north side of the building.
They also recommend demolishing and re-building the vestibule at the front of the building, digging a trench around the building and repairing cracks in the foundation, sealing the perimeter of the basement floor and re-grading around the perimeter of the building.
The engineers estimate the work will cost $205,000, including $40,000 in engineering fees.
Some members of council stated they preferred to implement a gravity drainage system, rather than relying on pumps. A local drainage contractor was called to provide input. He indicated one potential outlet route for the water did not provide sufficient elevation, while another would require sending water across a neighbouring property.
Public works director Larry Lynch said the contractor estimated it would cost about $15,000 to run a drain to an outlet.
“There are options to go by gravity, but they are quite expensive as well,” said Lynch, pointing out that even including a back-up pump and a back-up generator system, the pumping option would be cheaper.
“Fifteen thousand dollars is a lot of money, but at the same time, it’s not a lot of money, when we’ve spent more than that just talking about it for the last few months,” commented councillor Neil Driscoll.
Councillor Andy Knetsch asked if it would be more cost-efficient to simply fill in the basement and build an above ground addition to replace the lost space.
Burnside representatives at the meeting indicated they didn’t come prepared to answer that question, but suggested it would be technically possible to fill the basement with “unshrinkable fill.” However they were unsure if that solution would prove more cost effective.
The engineers were asked to provide further information on the cost of potential solutions and report back to council.
