CENTRE WELLINGTON – A Request for Proposal (RFP) to replace the Fergus Wastewater Treatment Plant’s secondary digester roof is not going forward after some councillors felt there wasn’t enough information given to make an informed decision.
Council discussed the recommendation of awarding the nearly $2 million request for proposal on a gas holder stainless steel floating roof.
This recommendation was based on capital and lifecycle costs, maintenance and technical considerations. According to the report, a floating roof also avoids the need to update the plant’s Environmental Compliance Approval (ECA) which is a lengthy process that would add cost.
The overall anticipated project cost would have been over budget by more than $300,000.
This didn’t sit well with some council members who began questioning some of the information that was and wasn’t in the report.
“When you wrote your report, did you consider a fixed roof versus a floating roof?” councillor Stephen Kitras asked.
Consultant Mike Newbigging confirmed that both were evaluated and a floating roof was advantageous.
Councillor Kirk McElwain had concerns that there was little information on what the cost would be to go with a fixed roof.
Dan Wilson, director of corporate services and treasurer, said it makes more sense to go with a floating roof despite a higher upfront cost because the overall lifecycle costs are lower.
Councillor Bob Foster further questioned not going with a fixed roof noting some municipalities have switched from floating roofs.
“My question then is why do we not have a more fulsome discussion on fixed versus floating roof?” Foster asked. “Why wouldn’t we want to save money?”
Director of infrastructure services Colin Baker reiterated that based on lifecycle cost and no opening up the ECA that they were confident in their recommendation.
Foster put forward a motion to defer to staff for a cost/benefit analysis between fixed and floating roofs. This motion was defeated 3-3 with Kitras and McElwain voting in favour and Mayor Kelly Linton, Neil Dunsmore and Steven Vanleeuwen against.
Councillor Ian MacRae was absent from this meeting.
Linton asked Baker about the implications of the project not moving forward.
Baker stressed that the township could be at risk of non-compliance with their ECA. That means the Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks or the Technical Services and Safety Authority could get involved.
“If council does not want to proceed with this we’re at risk of receiving an order to make the work happen,” Baker said. “If this work doesn’t proceed we could not only receive an order but be charged as well.”
Kitras said he was disturbed by this discussion and felt the mayor’s questions were scare tactics to push for approval.
“All we’re asking for in the previous motion was more information to make an informed decision,” Kitras said. “We just want the information and want to know that we are spending this over-budget correctly.”
The mayor defended his questions as valid and said he felt it was important to know the impacts of not going with the recommendation.
“If we don’t go ahead and approve this project, what we’re hearing from our managing director of infrastructure is we might be ordered to do so,” Linton said, adding that staff has already compared the benefits and cost of roof types.
This recommendation was ultimately defeated in a 3-3 vote with Linton, Dunsmore and Vanleeuwen in favour and Kitras, Foster and McElwain against.
