Drain con­struc­tion goes over bud­get

Work one-third com­plete

The Lindsay Post - - PAGE TWO - LISA GERVAIS Lind­say Post Re­porter lisa.gervais@sun­media.ca

Con­struc­tion on the Short and 2A drain has qui­etly gone $ 373,871 over bud­get to date, Ward 4 Coun. Glenn Camp­bell told Tues­day’s coun­cil meet­ing.

Re­fer­ring to a staff re­port he had re­quested, Camp­bell said an ad­di­tional $ 182,400 is be­ing sought by Coco Pav­ing in con­struc­tion costs af­ter en­coun­ter­ing heavy blue clay.

The con­sul­tants, R.J. Burn­side and As­so­ci­ates are also seek­ing an ad­di­tional $ 191,471.63 in costs for ten­der­ing and con­struc­tion in­spec­tion costs.

How­ever, Camp­bell is ques­tion­ing claims that the dis­cov­ery of heavy blue clay was un­ex­pected. He said the en­gi­neer, Tom Prid­ham, had stud­ied the drain for six years.

How­ever, Prid­ham said Wed­nes­day that no one had ever men­tioned heavy blue clay to him and that he had only ever walked on silt when in waders on site.

Camp­bell said the in­for­ma­tion wouldn't have even come be­fore coun­cil if he hadn't have asked for it and said the drainage board, which han­dles th­ese mat­ters, was in­su­lated from coun­cil. He is con­cerned since the drainage ref­eree's de­ci­sion of Aug. 21, 2012 states that any ex­tra claims greater than 10% of the ten­dered amount shall be paid by the city out of gen­eral funds and be­lieves res­i­dents from Bethany to Bob­cay­geon will be on the hook for added costs. He fur­ther wanted Prid­ham to ap­pear at a fu­ture coun­cil meet­ing. "It's clear to me and oth­ers that due dili­gence was not ap­plied." He said it was well- known to lo­cal res­i­dents that blue clay was there and res­i­dents had made an ef­fort to tell the com­pany and the city. "I think Mr. Prid­ham has some ex­plain­ing to do."

Coun­cil voted against re­quest- ing Prid­ham to ap­pear, how­ever city staff said they would be ask­ing the com­pany ques­tions. The city will hold off on get­ting out­side le­gal ad­vice.

Prid­ham re­torted that in the event of open drains, an en­gi­neer does not typ­i­cally do any test pits. He added that he be­lieves the clay should have been re­moved as far back as 1915 when orig­i­nal drain work was done. He added that re­gard­less of whether the clay was found at the out­set R. J. Burn­side's work, or now, there would still be a cost to re­move it.

Camp­bell said the work is only about one-third com­plete and "it is a bit ter­ri­fy­ing to con­sider there could be more to come."

McGee said the drainage dis­pute had been akin to the Hat­fields and McCoy's but Camp­bell re­torted it was an en­gi­neer who didn't do his job, a state­ment Prid­ham dis­agrees with.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Canada

© PressReader. All rights reserved.