Neal Morris, K Smart Associates provided a verbal report to Council. According to Section 59 (1) of the Drainage Act, if the contract price exceeds 133% of the engineer's construction estimate, the Council of the initiating municipality shall call a meeting to consider the contract price with the affected landowners and discuss the next steps. As the lowest tendered bid for this drainage project was above 133 percent of the estimated construction costs, this public meeting has been scheduled to permit affected landowners to represent any concerns to Council prior to considering the tender. No decision is made at this time. Council will consider whether to proceed with the drainage project after receiving comments from the public, and the Staff Report in item 6.1 of this agenda.
The Engineer explained that after meeting with the contractor, they are satisfied that the lowest bid does have the ability to complete the work.
Morris provided an explanation for the increase in the construction costs. The Engineer speculated that the rise may be attributed to the overall increase to construction costs over the last few years, and the non- standard (environmental features) of the construction, as well.
The Engineer estimated an approximate $10,000 increase to the Township's portion of the assessment.
The Engineer provided information on the current condition of the drain and the value of proceeding with the works at this time to stabalize the slope and works.
Presentations from the Applicant
The applicant provided no comment on the application.
Presentations from the Public
Name not identified - Harriston, Ontario - this member of the public is looking after a property at an address on the Second Concession, and inquired about seeing the actual plans for construction. The Engineer provided this information at the close of the meeting.
Murray Ferguson - address not provided. Ferguson inquired as to where the Clark Creek Municipal Drain ends. The proposed work ends about a half mile east of Lake Range drive, roughly at the end of the bend. Ferguson spoke again later in the meeting regarding erosion problems that have already occurred in the area.
Mike from Amberley - inquired about the options that are available to Council and what would happen if they don't proceed. Mike also inquired as to whether core samples were taken to establish geology. The Engineer indicated that the soil should not present a problem to the construction as engineered.
Ian Courtney - address on Second Concession- inquired about the original costs estimated, and what the assessment schedule they recently received includes.
The Drainage Engineer provided more information on what could increase costs, and what the process would be should that happen throughout the project. Unforeseen circumstances may include uncovering something unexpected such as an archeological site.
The Engineer explained that additional meetings, such as this required one have increased engineering costs.
Kitt Elmes- Concession 2 landowner inquired as to whether less stone could be used in the construction. The Engineer identified that this was a requirement from the department of Fisheries. Alms also inquired as to what location the rock would need to come from. The Engineer said location wasn't important, but size was.
The Engineer indicated that a Fluvial Geo-Morphologist was engaged to prepared the requirements to meet Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) standards and to meet natural channel design.
The Engineer explained that they have met with the contractors to ensure that they are able to complete the tasks.
Rob - no address provided -Inquired about if Council is responsible for any damages if they are not moving forward today.
The Drainage Engineer provided information as to how this report provides maintenance requirements within it.
The Engineer confirmed that the existing structure can't be replaced as per the DFO which provides constraints on what can be done in this drain.
Peter Schlegal - no address provided- inquired about how the costs had escalated. The Engineer confirmed that the construction costs due to the pandemic shutdown contributed, and that costing going forward has been adjusted to reflect the new pricing norms. This additionally has steep embankments which affect the type of material that is required to be used.
Kyle Smeltzer - no address provided - inquired as to the proposal from the contractor to get the stone in place. Smeltzer inquired as to whether landowner will be involved or contacted prior to construction to discuss this.
The Engineer is anticipating a Pre-construction meeting about two weeks prior to construction beginning (approximately July) will be held. Tile drain damages would be at the contractors expense. The Drainage Superintendent will meet with the landowner to discuss crop corridors
Crop loss and compaction damage would be built into the allowance and the assessment report. The Engineer uses a five year sliding scale. There is a one year warranty period and issues would need to be reported within that time. There are three proposed spots to access; the existing trail at the bottom of the dam, the opposite side of there for other work and an upstream option for other work.
Smeltzer additionally inquired about the schedule assessments and confirmed that the assessment received with the notice of the meeting shows the full costs.
name not provided - 4th Huron - inquired about the potential for more work- to be required. If the existing channel erodes, there are provisions in the Engineers Report to permit the Drainage Superintendent to do more maintenance work (bank stabilization) if required and this can be done routinely rather than as a tendering process.
Council has the ability to debenture costs if required. Staff provided information on the Drainage Assessment Loan Policy.
Questions and Clarifications from Council
Council expressed concerns that there is a big difference between the lowest tender and the next one highest one. The Drainage Superintendent discussed that the scope of work, and a site visit had been undertaken with the lowest bidder. The contractor will be required to provide the scope of work as described.