After lengthy debate at the September 28 General Committee meeting, Huntsville’s Town Council is still undecided about what to do with the town’s heritage train station.
Drainage and moisture issues have created air quality concerns for people working in and visiting the building, which prompted its closure earlier this year. The estimate for the work required to fix the problem is expensive – $388,500 to cover rerouting storm sewer drainage, remediating mould, and asbestos abatement among other things – and could go higher if that work unearths additional problems requiring remediation.
At the meeting, councillors were asked to consider whether the town should bear the cost of fixing the station’s drainage and mould issues or look at other alternatives such as selling the station as-is. Sale of the building would include transfer of an agreement the Town has with CN Rail in perpetuity, as well as an Ontario Heritage Trust conservation easement agreement which has also been established in perpetuity.
The report from town staff also noted two other options which could be mostly or entirely ruled out: finding a community partner to bear some or all of the cost of the repairs, which they felt would be difficult given the sum; and moving or demolishing the building, which are not permitted under the Ontario Heritage Trust conservation easement agreement for the property.
They have also pursued grant opportunities, but have been unsuccessful thus far.
How much is too much?
Some councillors expressed reservations with the cost and their opinion that there must be a limit to what is spent to preserve heritage structures.
An option suggested by Deputy Mayor Karin Terziano would be to extend the work into the 2018 budget, but Town CAO Denise Corry reminded councillors that the building would need to remain closed until work is completed and that “the building would continue to suffer the damage that occurred in rain events and it’s hard to say if in 2018 there won’t be additional damage based on our lack of action.”
Opinion on what action should be taken was divided around the table.
My concern is the Pandora’s box-like nature of it all. If we start digging in the ground around those rail lines and we find some issue that need to be remediated, we can’t just bury it back up… We are under an obligation to remediate… My anxiety about this is that there is no end to what this will actually cost the taxpayer. I believe quite strongly in the importance of preserving our heritage but not at any cost… I think we need to go back to the drawing board and find a different way of solving this problem and hopefully in a way that doesn’t include digging up all around that building because I am fearful of what we’ll find and what the implications of that are… It’s the kind of stuff that can cripple a corporation… We need to take a hard look at this.
Mayor Scott Aitchison
Councillor Nancy Alcock countered that it’s impossible to know what other issues there might be unless the work is undertaken and that environmental requirements have changed in recent years such that the nature and location of any contamination would dictate what remediation would be required. “You don’t always have to dig and dump now… You don’t know what you have (to deal with) unless you actually start the work. Do you say you don’t start because of the possibility, or do you start the work knowing that there might be alternative solutions?”
Should it stay or should it go?
Councillor Bob Stone is in favour of the town divesting itself of this asset. “We should be trying anything and everything to get out from under this. I’m not in favour of biting this bullet just yet. I would be in favour of putting it up for sale for one dollar and the cost of reparations and hopefully somebody can buy this building.”
But Councillor Fitzgerald says that the town has a responsibility to the project. “As a responsible corporation…it has to be undertaken. If we can do it in phases, that would be best. If there was funding available that would be even better. But I think as responsible people around this table we have to do that, not only for the heritage significance of the building but to act in a responsible way.”
Alcock said that council also needs to recognize the station’s importance as a community asset and noted that in other communities train stations “are community hubs and a hive of activity and a real economic driver… The one difference is that it was recognized as a community initiative not just a municipal one.” She cited the Rotary Club of Huntsville’s fundraising efforts to build the River Mill Park bandshell as an example of how the community can come together for large projects.
From my perspective this should not just be a municipal initiative, it should be a community initiative because it’s that important.
Councillor Nancy Alcock
In the end, the cost was too big a barrier and the motion was tabled, meaning it has been postponed for an undefined amount of time.
Related stories:
What to do with Huntsville’s CN Station?
Citing air quality concerns, the Chamber won’t be moving in to the train station after all
Don’t miss out on Doppler! Sign up for our free, twice-weekly newsletter here.
Rob Millman says
What exactly is contained in the agreement in perpetuity with CN rail? Surely CN rail must have contracted out for the construction of this building. In fact, given the cookie-cutter style of these small-town stations, they must have paid to have them all built. Has no other community experienced problems with their station under an identical agreement?
If that can somehow be researched, it would be the logical place to start. Of course, one cannot go back on the contractor at such a late date. But what about CN rail? They must have had an inspector on site, who could potentially have foreseen this problem.
I assume that the Town purchased the station for a dollar and undertook all future costs associated with it. If the Town did their “due diligence”, however, their building inspector should have been there intermittently (certainly before any underground works were buried). Presumably, we are talking about the accumulated damage caused by several two- to ten- year storms over the life of the building. Personally, I have no knowledge of anything in the order of a twenty-five-year or more intense storm in recent memory.
Perhaps it all boils down to a little more “caveat emptor” and a little more intensive inspection during construction. That CN rail escapes with total impunity sticks in my craw nonetheless.