Loading...
AGENDA - Special General Committee - 20080407AuIZoRA SPECIAL GENERAL COMMITTEE -BUDGET AGENDA NO. 08-18 MONDAY, APRIL 1, 2008 7:00 I'm 'COUNCIL CHAMBERS AURORA TOWN NALL PUBLIC RELEASE 03/04/08 AURORA TOWN OF AURORA SPECIAL GENERAL COMMITTEE BUDGET MEETING AGENDA NO. 08-18 Monday April 7, 2008 Council Chambers 7:00 p.m. Mayor Morris in the Chair I DECLARATIONS OF PECUNIARY INTEREST 11 APPROVAL OFAGENDA RECOMMENDED: THAT the content of the agenda as circulated by the Corporate Services Department be approved as presented. 111 DELEGATIONS None IV CONSIDERATION OF ITEMS REQUIRING SEPARATE DISCUSSION V ADJOURNMENT Special General Committee Budget Meeting No. 08-18 Page 2 of 4 Monday, April 7, 2008 AGENDA ITEM 1. LS08-016 — Aurora Heritage Centre pg. 1 (deferred from March 31, 2008 Special General Committee meeting) (attachments pertaining to the HVAC System have been omitted, as that matter was addressed at the March 31, 2008 Special General Committee meeting) RECOMMENDED: THAT Council provide direction to staff on what additional components of the Aurora Heritage Centre Project they would like undertaken at this time; and THAT any additional funds required to complete the additional projects be taken from the Council Discretionary Reserve Fund; and THAT staff take appropriate action to advertise the use of the Council Discretionary Reserve Fund as per the policy established by Council. 2. Memorandum from the Chief Administrative Officer pg. 69 Re: Calendar of Staff Initiative Events — 2007 and Preliminary Calendar - 2008 (deferred from March 31, 2008 Special General Committee meeting) RECOMMENDED: THAT the Calendar of Staff Initiative Events — 2007 and Preliminary Calendar — 2008 be received for information. 3. Memorandum from the Chief Administrative Officer pg. 72 Re: Staff Justifications — Economic Development Division (deferred from March 31, 2008 Special General Committee meeting) RECOMMENDED: THAT the memorandum from the Chief Administrative Officer entitled Staff Justifications — Economic Development Division be received for information. Special General Committee Budget Meeting No. 08-18 Page 3 of 4 Monday, April 7, 2008 4. Extract from Arts and Culture Advisory Committee -March 27, 2008 pg. 82 Re: Request for an Interim Staff Position - Aurora Heritage Centre - 22 Church Street (deferred from March 31, 2008 Special General Committee meeting) RECOMMENDED: THAT it be recommended to Council that, in order to ensure the best and most efficient development and implementation of Aurora's arts; culture and heritage, Council be requested to promptly consider providing, under the direction of the Director of Financial Services/Treasurer, immediate additional skilled human resources necessary to support the Heritage Centre during the period from the current planning stage until its opening, or the implementation of its governance structure, whichever comes first; and THAT this recommendation be presented to the April 1, 2008 General Committee for consideration. 5. Correspondence from FCM Centre for Sustainable Community pg. 83 Development Re: 2008 Call for Applications: Energy New GMF Funding Opportunity for Green Buildings (deferred from March 31, 2008 Special General Committee meeting) THAT the correspondence from the FCM Centre for Sustainable Community Development be received for information. 6. Memorandum from the Director of Financial Services/Treasurer Re: Questions Asked at Previous Budget Meeting (to be distributed at the Meeting) RECOMMENDED: THAT the memorandum from the Director of Financial Services/Treasurer, regarding questions asked at previous budget meeting, be received for information. Special General Committee Budget Meeting No. 08-18 Page 4 of 4 Monday, April 7, 2008 7. Summary of Current 2008 Budget Position (to be distributed at the Meeting) RECOMMENDED: THAT the summary of the current 2008 Budget position be received for information. 8. Revised 2008 Capital Summary (to be distributed at the Meeting) RECOMMENDED: THAT the revised 2008 Capital summary be received for information. 9. Deferral from Special General Committee Meeting March 3, 2008 pg. 84 Re: Capital Budget Adjustment of 2% (deferred from March 3, 2008 General Committee meeting) RECOMMENDED: THAT the Council approve an increase in the tax levy by a dollar amount of $460,000 which is equivalent to 2%; and THAT these funds be specifically earmarked to begin to address the capital funding shortfall as recommended by the Treasurer; and THAT the amount be placed into the municipal capital reserve; and THAT this philosophy be carried forward to future years for Council consideration. 10. Finalization of the 2008 Capital and Operating Budget RECOMMENDED: THAT the final budget be presented at the April 22, 2008 Council meeting for adoption. SPECIAL GC - APRIL 7, 2008 ITEM /— TOWN OF AURORA. AU1'0- RA SPECIAL GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING No.LS08-016 SUBJECT: Aurora Heritage Centre FROM: Allan D. Downey, Director of Leisure Services DATE: March 24, 2008 RECOMMENDATIONS THAT Council provide direction to staff on what additional components of the Aurora Heritage Centre Project they would like undertaken at this time; and THAT any additional funds required to complete the additional projects be taken from the Council Discretionary Reserve Fund; and THAT staff takeappropriateaction to advertise the use of the Council Discretionary Reserve Fund as per the policy established by Council. BACKGROUND Staff presented Report FS08-012 (attached) to a Special General Committee Meting on March 3, 2008. From that meeting the following recommendations was given to staff. 8. FS08-012 — Aurora Heritage Centre General Committee recommends: THAT a Special General Committee workshop be convened in orderto allow the Director of Leisure to review, .and the Committee to discuss, details. related Aurora Heritage Centre including, but not limited to: • HVAC/Geothermal system, related costs and cost benefits • Structural engineering analysis/foundation integrity report Alarm system requirements and related costs • Projected roof replacement costs • Review of the technical and electrical details pertaining to this project • Details and information on premiums for work done after hours • Update on.mould abatement measures • Report on the status of insurability of the building • Priorities for the current year; and THAT the Clerk poll the Mayor and members of Council to determine availability prior to an existing scheduled meeting. CARRIED .../2 -1- SPECIAL GC - APRIL 7, 2008 ITEM # 1-2 March 24, 2008 -2- Report No. LS08-016 COMMENTS Staff have compiled the information requested and addressed each issue in this report (background information is attached where applicable). 1. H VAC/Geothermal System, Related Costs and Cost Benefits During the design process for the Heritage Centre staff at the request of the Architect presented a recommendation to Council to engage the services of a Consultant to prepare a report on. the cost benefits of geothermal versus conventional HVAC systems for the Heritage Centre (attached Report LS07-028). Staff received a cost benefit analysis report on August 8, 2007 (see attached) as well as estimated costing on August 23, 2007 (see attached). These options were included in the Tendering of the renovation for the Heritage Centre as alternative items and identified in our Cultural Spaces Federal Grant Application presented to General Committee on September 4, 2007. The report was evaluated by the Architect indicating that based on estimates a geothermal system will have a higher initial cost, however as a result of lower energy and maintenance costs compared to a conventional system, these additional costs would be paid back in between 4.6 and 5.8 years. 2. Structural Engineering Analysis/Foundation Integrity Report. During the Tendering.process,.the prospective Contractors were required to attend a mandatory site meeting. At that meeting they inquired if a mould study had been done. We responded that there was no study available but that a Consultant would be engaged to investigate the situation. The Town engaged the services of Pinchin Environmental who previously provided services to the department at the Aurora Recreation Complex. Staff received a report on October 12, 2007 (see attached) and this information was included in the Tender documents to Bidders. As a result of this investigation, we also requested that a water infiltration report be completed to determine whether we have an issue and if so where. Staff received a report as a result of their investigation on October 31, 2007 (see attached). These findings were focussed on the exterior of the facility and did not impact on the interior renovation works, so were not added to the Tender documents. As a result of their report, staff are recommending that water infiltration issues be addressed in the exposed foundation walls, brick repairs, repairs to soffit and facia, window sills and broken windows, as well as foundation repairs. The repairs are estimated at $240,000.00 and identified in Report FS08-012. Staff recommend that these repairs proceed immediately and that other issues identified in the report be addressed in future budgets. .2- SPECIAL GC - APRIL 7, 2008 ITEM # March 24, 2008 -3- Report No. LS08-016 3. Alarm System Requirements and Related Costs The Heritage Centre presently has an operational alarm system with latch and motion detector capabilities. The Renovation Contract includes the addition of closed circuit cameras to this system. Staff are not recommending upgrades at this time, however if additional motion sensors were required and the system upgraded, the estimated cost would be $4,000.00. 4. Projected Roof Replacement Costs . The Pinchin Report has identified that the asphaltshingles are curling and will require replacement, however staff are recommending that this be identified as a 2010 Budget item at an estimated cost of $80,000.00. 5. Review of the Technical and Electrical Details Pertaining to this Project The Heritage Centre's electrical system was upgraded in 2003 and sufficient power exists to the facility to operate any HVAC upgrades. Minor modification to the electrical panel may be.required in order to access the 1600 amp service that presently exists in the Heritage Centre, 6. Details and Information on Premium for work done after Hours The existing Contract does not identify any such premiums and staff do not anticipate any such charges. 7. Update on Mould Abatement Measures Pinchin Environmental has provided staff with laboratory analysis of abatement measures taken by Rutherford Contracting and are satisfied that all mould and asbestos has been safely removed form the site. Additional areas were identified in the removal process and an additional $18,210 was required to complete the removal. 8. Report on the Status of Insurability's of the Building The Heritage Centre is currently ensured at $3,558,000 (see attached email). 9. Priorities for the Current Year Staff have identified a list of additional works in this report and staff Report FS08-012.. These works must be performed in order to prevent water infiltration and are required by the Ontario Heritage Trust in order to comply with their requirements to maintain the exterior of the Heritage Centre: -3- SPECIAL GC - APRIL 75 2008 l TEM # 1-4 March 24, 2008 - 4 - Report No. LS08-016 Staff have identified the repairs to the exterior in order to prevent water infiltration as a priority. All other works would be placed in jeopardy if water infiltration is not addressed. I trust the above information addresses concerns raised at the March 3, 2008 General Committee Meeting and Council has been provided sufficient information to proceed with the recommendations outlined in this report. Allan' D. Downey Director of Leisure Services -4- SPECIAL GC - APRIL 7, 2008 ITEM AuR,oRA EXTRACT FROM SPECIAL GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING NO. 08-1.2 HELD ON MONDAY, MARCH 3, 2008. & TO BE ADOPTED AT COUNCIL ON TUESDAY,_MARCH 25, 2008 8. FS08-012 — Aurora Heritage Centre General Committee recommends: THAT a Special General Committee workshop be convened in order to allow the Director of Leisure to review, and the Committee to discuss, details related Aurora Heritage Centre including, but not limited to: • HVAC/Geothermal system, related costs and cost benefits • Structural engineering analysis/foundation integrity report • Alarm system requirements and related costs Projected roof replacement costs • Review of the technical and electrical details pertaining to this project • Details and information on premiums for work done after hours • Update on mould abatement measures • Report on the status of insurability of the building • Priorities for the current year; and THAT the Clerk poll the Mayor and members of Council to determine availability prior to an existing scheduled meeting, CARRIED CORRESPONDENCE SENTSY: ACTION DEPT.: INFO DEPT.: , Building, Committee of Adjustment, Legal -5- SPECIAL GC-.APRIL 7, 2008 ITEM# 1-6 / TOWN OF AURORA AUTtORA COUNCIL MEETING No.FS08-012 SUBJECT: Aurora Heritage Centre FROM: L. John Gutteridge, Director of Finance 1 �aW' r ' ��3WN OF AUF3Uvvou DATE: March 3, 2008 CLERK,8 DEPARTMEW 9f Reoon DWOodthn RECOMMENDATIONS f' D Adopted t ✓f werwl {) Amended {) Wom Date .__...,.:.._.1M001inq/Psae3 F MAROH d4; aoog' Mee-'nNC-7 THAT Council provide direction to staff on what additioiia�%anrponents of the Aurora Heritage Centre Project they would like undertaken at this time; and THAT any additional funds required to complete the additional projects be taken from the Council Discretionary Reserve Fund; and THAT staff take appropriate action to advertise the use of the Council Discretionary Reserve Fund as per the policy established by Council BACKGROUND On July 17, 2007 Council approved the following resolution: J THAT report FS07-031 be received; and THAT Council authorize the withdrawal of up to $2, 530, 000 from the Council discretionary Reserve Fund for the purpose of renovating the Aurora Heritage Centre. On December 11, 2007 after the Tenders were opened Council adopted the following resolution: THAT Council approve the award of construction renovations for the Aurora Heritage Centre - 22 Church Street to Rutherford Construction incorporated based on Tender results of LS2007-92 in the amount of $2,184,408; and THAT Council approve an additional contingency allowance of 10% of the base bid amount, $218,440, to account for additional work and potential changes to the contract. The first column of Attachment #1 is the budget that was approved for this project at this time, based upon this budget we were projecting a. surplus of $42,152 with a provision for a Contingency of $218,440. Subsequent to passing the above resolution staff submitted an application to Canadian Heritage for a Cultural Spaces Canada Program Grant. -6- SPECIAL GC - APRIL 7, 2008 ITEM # 1 - 7 March 3, 2008 - 2 - Report No. FS08-012 On December 11, 2007 Council approved the following resolution: THAT the Town of Aurora accept the proposal from Novita Interpares Limited for the preparation of a Business Plan for the Aurora Heritage Centre, and subject to receiving Canadian Arts and Heritage Sustainability Program funding, No vita also be contracted for the preparation of a Strategic Plan and Training and Development for the Aurora Heritage Centre, and THAT the Arts and Culture Committee be the steering group for this project. The effect of this resolution was that if the grant was approved $19,500 of the Contingency would be the Town's Share for the grant. If you add the approvals above, Council has approved $2,487,848 in expenditure to date. The items approved are identified in the first column of Attachment #1. COMMENTS As Council is now aware we were successful in obtaining grants for. this project, we received $750,000 from the Cultural Spaces Canada Program Grant which represents 33% of eligible costs or $750,000. This means that the Town must spend a minimum $2,250,000 ineligible expenditures for the $750,000. To bean eligible cost it must bean expenditure on costs relating to the renovation of the Centre's presentation, exhibition and archival spaces. In addition, the grant is conditional on the,purchase and installation of an HVAC system, window coverings and internal storm windows. Items that would not be eligible would be office space, telecommunications equipment, and costs related to space that will not be used for presentation, exhibition and archival space.. Since the start of this project a number of extra items have been identified for consideration. These additional items are listed in the second column of Attachment #1. With this report we are trying to identify for Council the entire scope and costs that pertain to this building as we know them today. This Column is broken down into 5 sections being: Total Approved by Council Grant,ltems Other Items Additional Considerations Revenue Under the Total Approved by Council section you will note that the $39,000 project you approved with Novita has been included to bring the amount previously approved to. $2,509,934. 7- SPECIAL GC - APRIL 71 2008 ITEM # 9 ' 8 March 3, 2008 - 3 - Report No. FS08-012 In the Grant items section is a list of the projects that were suggested when we submitted the grant application to the Ministry, the original amount of these items were to coincide with the amount of the grant application or $1,164,250. but the numbers have been reduced now that we have the final contract costs. There are some items in this list that will need to be done as a condition of the grant, the first being the HVAC unit, the grant was given to insure that an HVAC unit was installed in the facility. The HVAC does not have to be a Geothermal Heating and.Air Conditioning unit to qualify. The other items on, this list that are a condition of the grant are the Interior Storm Windows and the Roller Shades. The total for all the items in this section amount to $909,900. The third section of Column 2 is the Other Items Section the items identified in this section are items that are either done and not considered in the original estimates or will need to be done before the building can be opened. Most of the items in this portion were identified in the Hooker Report, Hooker was the cost consultant retained for this project. A number of these items are eligible for funding from the grant. The fourth section for Additional Items are items that will need to be done either now or some time in the near future. These additional items currently amount to $258,270. The first item on this list, Additional Abatement of Asbestos, is an extra to the contract and should be taken from the contingency allowance. Finally you have the Revenue section, this section identifies all of the known sources of revenue for this project, please note that we are suggesting that we use the balance of the Church St. School Discretionary Reserve Fund of $82,890. Also included is the money donated by the late Margaret Brevik of $155,000, this money has beendonatedon the premise that "the funds go toward construction and/orpermanenf fixtures at Church Street School" The conclusion to this report is that should Council.wish to complete all of the items identified in Column #2 of Attachment #1 of this report there would be. a shortfall of $644,369. The third column on Attachment #1 identifies those particular pieces of the project that would be eligible for grant funding. The individual pieces of the project will fall into.3 categories, items that are 100% eligible, items that are 82% eligible and items that are not eligible for part of the grant. The amount of eligible cost total $3,055,148. which exceeds the minimum required to be spent to receive all of the grant allocation. if however, Council wishes to delete any components of the project the grant eligibility portion will be reduced as well. The additional work required for the facility identified in this, report is as a result of an independent general assessment of the building's exterior as well as recommendations for any required remedial work required. The last time the facility had any exterior repairs was in 2002, when the works were focused on fire escape removal and reinstallation of exteriorwindows and brick repairs. As part of that Contract, remedial drainage works were also performed on the foundation at a cost of $36,500, which included excavation, backfiiling, drainage and waterproofing. -8- SPECIAL GC - APRIL 7, 2008 ITEM # 9 - 9 March 3, 2008 - 4 - Report No. FS08-012 The treatment involved the placement of a waterproof membrane against the fieldstone foundation and installation of new weeping tile. Since that date the facility has continued to decline and new issues have arisen. The belfry is now in need of repair, the original mortar has fallen from the exposed fieldstone foundationwall above the parking lot grade and permitted water infiltration into the foundation and compromised the waterproofing installed in 2002. Brick repairs are now required, and repairs are required to the soffit and facia in order to eliminate water infiltration. The remedial work provided in this report has been quoted by the Contractor presently on site and identified all the immediate remedial work required. The main focus of the work is on the foundation and much more extensive works are being recommended.' The exposed foundation wall will be re -mortared and sealed, below grade foundation will be excavated, the existing waterproofing removed, a poured concrete face applied from the base to six (6) inches above grade, a new waterproofing membrane applied, then the exposed portion protected with metal flashing These works, combined with the other recommended repairs will prevent future deterioration of the exterior and water infiltration into the structure. OPTIONS 1.. As stated in the recommendations of this report. 2. THAT Council provide direction to Staff on what additional components of this project they would like undertaken at this time; and THAT the additional funds for the project be taken from the Capital General Reserve Fund 3. That none of the extra work be completed at this time and items for the list be included in future Capital Budgets, FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS Council will have to review the list of projects as outlined on Attachment #1 and consider the necessity of completing all or any of them. Should Council decide to complete the entire list the total expenditures for the.project would be $4,182,259. and there would be an additional contribution required of $644,369. and these funds would have to come from another source. Should Council wish to complete the entire project we would suggest that the Shortfall come from the Council Discretionary Reserve fund which is the same fund the initial $2,530,000, came from. The one problem with this recommendation is that it would require Council to advertise 14 days in advance of your Council meeting and 2/3.of the member of Council will have to vote in favour. CONCLUSIONS The Federal Government has identified that an HVAC unit is necessary for grant purposes, however it does not need to be a Geo-Thermal Unit,. if Council wanted to install a basic commercial unit it would save the, project an estimated $300,000. -9- SPECIAL GC - APRIL 7, 2008 ITEM# 1-10 March 3, 2008 - 5 - Report No. FS08-012 Experience shows that projects such as this can escalate in costs due to the nature of the building. We are hopeful that with this report we have identified all the issues to bring the building to completion. As has been pointed out some of the issues on the list do not need to be completed this year but will have to be addressed in the very near future. If Council does not want to proceed with a component of the project we can include them in the Capital Program for future years. LINK TO STRATEGIC PLAN Goal A: Foster and'enhance a strong and stable economy consistent with the attributes of a sustainable community. ATTACHMENTS Attachment #1 — Project Detail for 22 Church Street Project PRE -SUBMISSION REVIEW Management Team Review- Wednesday, March 4th, 2008' i Prepared by; L. John Gutteridge, Director of Finance/Treasurer-Ext. #4111 Al Downey, Director of Leisure Services — Ext. #4752 1. Job Gutteridge John S, Rogers Director of Finance/Treasurer Chief Administrative Officer Al�y Director of Leisure Services -90- SPECIAL GC - APRIL 73, 2008 ITEM # PINCH IN ENVIRONMENTAL October 31, 2007 Town of Aurora I Municipal Drive, Box 1000 Aurora, Ontario L4G 6.11 Attention: Aaron Karmazyn Re: Water Infiltration Investigation 22 Church Street, Aurora Ontario Pinchin File 43139 MFr�efaoF (EG' '✓��Proress(onal Enginecro Onwio PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL At the request of Aaron Karmazyn, Town of Aurora, Pinchin Environmental Ltd. (Pinchin) conducted a review of the building exterior walls and. basement at 22 Church St. Aurora Ontario - The purpose of the review was to conduct a general assessment of the building envelope and make recommendations for remedial work relating to moisture infiltration into the Site building. Interviews were conducted with Greg McClenny, Operations Supervisor, herein after referred to as the "Site Representative" to determine the location and occurrence of water infiltration into the building. Moisture has been reported entering the building at the basement floor level and lower basement level landing and elevator machine room. The building is a two storey brick masonry structure reportedly constructed in or about 1886, One addition has been added to the building approximately seven years ago. The addition is a two storey structure on the north elevation, housing a rear entry, staircase and an elevator. Enclosed please find the results of our observations followed by our recommendations for remedial action intended to correct identified building deficiencies and reported water infiltrations. 1.0 OBSERVATIONS Our cursory review of the roof system of the building was restricted to a visual survey from ground level only, The condition of the roof was found to be deteriorating in the form of shrinking and curling shingles noted at all elevations. 1'he greatest amount of deterioration appeared to be at the lower roof edge and valley locations although curling shingles were noted throughout the roof system. 2470 MILLTOWER COURT, MISSISSAUGA, ONTARIO L5N 7W5 PHONE: (905) 363-0678 FAX: (905) 363-0681 ENVIRONMENTAL HEALIR4 & SAFFTY MANAGEMENT SERVICES FROM OFFICES ACROSS CANADA. - +vww.oinchin cm a 1-888-767-3330 77 - SPECIAL GC - APRIL 7, 2008 ITEM.# 1- 12 Water Infiltration Inspection Report 22 Church Street, Aurora, ON Town of Aurora PRIVATE & CONFIDENTIAL October 31, 2007 Pinchin File: 43139 No water infiltration has been reported with respect to the roof and no evidence of water infiltration could be identified on the interior of the second floor of the building. At one exterior location on the east elevation, deteriorating shingles at the lower edge of the roof appear to be permitting water to pass through the roof system affecting paint on the soffit below. Our review occurred after 'a time of considerable rain and the brick masonry directly below these deteriorating shingles were wet, indicating saturation of the wall system. It is also possible that - the junction of the roof edge and adjacent building wall is not properly sealed with flashing. Pinchin recommends the replacement of the sloped roof shingles. The replacement of the shingles should include a review of the underlying sheathing and include the proper detailing of components (metal valleys, step flashing and the installation of ice and water shield at the lower edge of all roof elevations). 2. Eaves troughs and downspouts appeared in good condition except for a few ground level locations where the downspouts have been damaged by impact. PVC or ABS piping can be used at grade to reduce the damage to downspouts. 3. The envelope of the addition was reviewed with respect to moisture infiltration into the basement. The envelope is comprised of an Exterior Insulating Finishing System (EIFS) mechanically fastened to a concrete block wall with painted block on the interior. The wall sits on a concrete block foundation. EIFS is an insulating foam panel with a cement base and acrylic top coat of stucco applied to the exterior. EIFS panels are installed with caulking seals between each panel and between the EIFS and other building components (windows and doors). No deficiencies were noted with the caulking of the EIFS panels except where the corner of the foundation appears to have settled. Cracks were noted in the EIFS at the bottom, of the North West comer of the addition, also related to the corner settlement. Water infiltration was reported on the interior lower level foundation block wall of the addition and efflorescence and flowing water was noted during our review. A North West corner detail of the addition projects out from the north wall approximately 14 inches and appears to have settled causing a separation of the EIFS and foundation walls. The adjacent asphalt has also settled tearing a caulking bead between the wall and asphalt. A section of the EIFS panel has cracked and is separating at the bottom of the panel on the east side of the North West corner projection. It is possible that the soil was not properly compacted in 0 2007 Pinchin Environmental Ltd. Page 2 -12- SPECIAL GC - APRIL 7, 2008 STEM # Water Infiltration Inspection Report 22 Church Street, Aurora, ON Town of Aurora PRIVATE & CONFIDENTIAL October 31, 2007 Pinchin File: 43139 this area during construction. The noted settlement may be caused by the consolidation of soil at the foundation or by the loss of soil through erosion. Differential settlement in the foundation wall could cause a separation in the waterproofing membrane on the exterior of the foundation. Subsequently, this could lead to water infiltration into the lower level of the addition as was observed. Further review of the exterior foundation of the addition found the existing grade of the surrounding asphalt to be above the level of the foundation waterproofing and at or above the level of the foundation sill plate (top of the foundation wall). The Ontario Building Code states that the top of a foundation wall shall be, not less than 150 min above grade. This is to prevent water from grade entering at the junction between the foundation and upper wall. The asphalt pavement is level with the interior floor and no waterproofing is visible between the asphalt and foundation. There is the potential that in this location water is entering at the top of the foundation wall from grade. Once on top of the foundation wall, water can travel along the sill plate and enter the wall system. This could permit water to enter across the concrete block wall from the top creating the efflorescence and water infiltration noted on the interior. The grade of the asphalt around the addition entrance was not sufficiently sloped to direct water away from the entrance and foundation wall. Pinchin recommends excavating the asphalt and soil at the north elevation of the addition to confirm and repair as required the following: • the condition of the weeping tile to determine if it is wrapped in filter cloth to prevent soil erosion into the weeping tile system; • confirm the condition of the water proofing membrane on the foundation wall and repair as necessary; reinstate soil and asphalt with the final grade 150 min below the top of the foundation wall, and; • re -grade the surrounding surfaces of the addition to provide a positive slope away from the building entrance and foundation wall. 4. 'the walls of the main two storey building are comprised of structural mass masonry supporting a wood beam and framed roof structure with exterior face brick and what appeared to be double or single hung windows in wood frames. Much of the brick masonry appears to be in good condition commensurate with its age while in other areas deteriorating conditions were noted. Bricks and mortar 0 2007 Pinchin Environmental Ltd. -13- SPECIAL GC - APRIL 7, 2008 STEM # 1.14 Waler Infiltration Inspection Report 22 Church Street, Aurora, ON Town of Aurora PRIVATE & CONFIDENTIAL October 31., 2007 Pinchin File: 43139 were found cracked vertically between many window sections at all elevations. Cracks were noted in concrete lintels above windows. Brick arches over windows also have many cracked and broken bricks. The bricks and mortar at the bottom of the wall at the main front entry have been eroded through the use of salt during winter months. Caulking between the brick masonry and window or door frames has deteriorated to the point of being non-existent. Cracks in window sills are open to water infiltration into the Of and wall. All of the above conditions permit water to enter the wall system where the bricks stones and mortar become saturated. During winter months, freezing temperatures and freeze thaw cycles cause the masonry to deteriorate. Sand like material was noted on window sills where it has been washed out of the building walls. This material appears to be the remnants of the mortar used in the masonry walls now breaking down and flowing or being washed out of the wall. 5. The foundation of the building is comprised of field stone and mortar. Much of the foundation wall is below grade and was reportedly waterproofed approximately 10 years ago. Approximately three feet of the foundation wall is exposed above grade and does not have any waterproofing on the exterior. The condition of the exposed foundation wall is poor. Mortar has been eroded from the wall to such an extent that large openings were noted that reach well into the stone wall. Eroded and missing mortar was noted at all elevations. Considering the porous nature of the existing foundation wall and openings in the masonry wall above, it is likely that water is traveling down from many areas of the exterior wall. to the foundation. Water entering the wall will travel down to the floor of the basement or as was reported, flow directly out of the interior of the foundation wall. Moisture and.flowing water in the wall has affected the exterior waterproofing of the below grade foundation, causing the waterproofing to separate from the wall permitting further water infiltration from below grade. The number of openings in the exterior walls at all elevations will permit water to enter the wall system. Unseen and on going damage could be occurring inside the wall without showing signs on the interior finishes. As the exterior walls are solid masonry structural walls, internal deterioration of the mortar through freeze thaw cycles may have already lead to structural deficiencies within these walls. Mould growth within the wall system may also develop and affect the interior air quality of the building. Insulation that becomes wet will not provide the intended insulation' values. ©2007 Pinchin Environmental Ltd. Page 4 14 SPECIAL GC - APRIL 71 2008 ITEM # -15 Water Infiltration Inspection Report 22 Church Street, Aurora, ON Town of Aurora PRIVATE & CONFIDENTIAL October 31, 2007 Pinchin File: 43139 Pinchin recommends the exterior masonry and stone foundation walls have bricks and stone replaced as required and all deteriorated and missing in removed and replaced. All cracked concrete should be repaired and cracks in the wood window sills repaired and sealed along with the application of caulking to all window and door perimeters and mechanical penetrations through the wall. 6. A review was conducted of the site grading and found some locations where the grade is sloped toward the building wall. There is a depression on the west side of the front entrance of the building possibly caused by a reported broken water main that has subsequently been repaired. Another area of depression adjacent to the building wall was found at the south west corner of the building where a new water main has been supplied to the building: These depressions will direct water toward the building wall and may lead to further water infiltration or deterioration of the waterproofing membrane. As stated earlier, depressions and a negative slope directs water toward the foundation wall at the north elevation of the north addition to the building. Pinchin recommends the grade be adjusted to provide a positive slope away from the building at all elevation's. 7. Our review also noted mould growth on interior drywall near the center of the building basement. The Site representative indicated that this mould occurred after a large water leak into the basement following a break in the water main to the building. The water main has been repaired and water no longer appears to be affecting this area of the building. Pinchin has conducted a mould investigation relating to the noted mould growth. The results of that investigation will be provided in a separate document. 1A Recommendations The following recommendations are intended to provide direction regarding repairs that, in Pinchin's opinion, are required to rectify the reported water infiltration and other problems identified at the building during our review. As this report is of a cursory nature, further investigation may be necessary to fully identify all repair requirements at this building. Specification developrient may be required to provide a Contractor with a fully developed Scope of Work including specified materials and repair/ installation methods. Budgets have not been included as this was outside of the Scope of the Report. The deteriorated roof shingles have passed their service life and are in need of replacement. Shrinking and curling shingles on the east elevation appear to have permitted water infiltration causing damage to the wood soffit and saturation of © 2007 Pinchin Environmental Ltd. Page 5 -15- SPECIAL GC - APRIL 7, 2008 ITEM # 1. 96 i� Water Infiltration Inspection Report PRIVATE & CONFIDENTIAL 22 Church Street, Aurora, ON - October 31, 2007 Town of Aurora Pinchin File: 43139 the masonry below the deteriorating shingles. This along with curling shingles throughout the roof is an indication that the roof system is failing. Other locations will likely begin to leak in the near future. Pinchin recommends the .complete replacement of the roof shingles. 2. The exterior masonry walls should have mortar and brick/stone replacement conducted as required and any wall penetrations should be filled and scaled. 3. Caulking should be installed or replaced at all window and door perimeters and any wall penetrations to fully seal openings between dissimilar materials in the wall system. 4. The existing waterproofing on the foundation walls of the main building has failed and is separating from the foundation wall. Pinchin recommends the walls of the main building be exposed and the existing waterproofing removed. The condition of the foundation walls should be reviewed and repairs to the foundation conducted as required. A poured concrete face should be applied to the exterior foundation wall from the base to approximately 6 inches above final grade and a new waterproofing membrane installed to the top of the new concrete face. The exposed portion of the foundation waterproofing should be protected with metal flashing. The weeping tile system should be reinstated and the area J back filled with a positive slope away from the building. 5. Settlement at the north foundation wall of the addition appears to have occurred and soil may be eroding from below grade: Pinchin recommends the north foundation wall of the building be exposed and the condition of the waterproofing reviewed and repaired as required. The weeping tile system should also be reviewed and repairs conducted as required. 6. The grade around the addition is level or above the foundation wall and waterproofing. Pinchin recommends the grade around the addition walls be lowered to a minimum of 6 inches below the level of the foundation or foundation waterproofing. If required, the waterproofing membrane should be raised above the level of the new grade. This report has been prepared by the Building Science Group of Pinchin Environmental Inc., (Pinchin) a full service Building Science Department dedicated to identifying building related problems and managing the required corrective action. We offer a full range of Project Management Services to our Corporate, Commercial and Residential. clients from investigation to design and specification development, tendering, remediation of building envelope components (i.e., roofing, cladding, windows), balconies, parking garages, and site services. © 2007 Pinchin Environmental Ltd. Page 6 W RE SPECIAL GC - APRIL 7, 2008 ITEM # 1- 17 Water Infiltration Inspection Report 22 Church Street, Aurora, ON Town of Aurora PRIVATE & CONFIDENTIAL October 31, 2007 Pinchin File: 43139 The recommendations provided within this Report are intended to offer some guidance with respect to the remedial action that, in Pinchin's opinion should be carried out in a timely manner. Pinchin would be pleased to assist The Town of Aurora in the remediation of the identified .. problems found at 22 Church St. in Aurora. Should you wish proceed with the recommended actions, do not hesitate to contact our office to discuss the appropriate steps for full remediation of the building related problems discussed in this report. 1.2 Photographic Documentation: The following photographs were taken during our cursory review of the building. 2007 Pinchin Environmental Ltd, Deteriorating shingles on the east elevation with damaged soffit and fascia. Brick masonry is wetbelow this area indicating a possible roof leak into the wall system. Area of curling shingles on the front. (south) elevation. Page 7 zkrz SPECIAL GC - APRIL 7, 2008 ITEM# 1-18 Water Infiltration Inspection Report 22 Church Street, Aurora, ON Town of Aurora ® 2007 Pinchin Environmental Ltd. PRIVATE & CONPIDENCIAL October 31, 2007 Pinchin Fite: 43139 Surface grade at north and east elevation of addition is level with interior floor. Surface grade is at or above the foundation level in contravention- of the Ontario Building Code. This leads to water infiltration above the foundation waterproofing and wall. Repair of settlement area at north elevation of addition. i Open crack between foundation wall and EIFS wall system indicate settlement of foundation or footing. page 8 -18-