[EDITOR’S NOTE: The following is a letter sent Tuesday from Peachtree City Mayor Harold Logsdon:]

Last week’s letter to the editor from Mr. Juan Matute about the problems at the Peachtree City Police Station brought to light some common concerns in the community about the facility.

Unfortunately, the concerns are based on some long-standing misinformation and confusion about the site. The city has done a poor job in communicating the actual issues with the site, and I appreciate the opportunity to clarify some of the points Mr. Matute raised.

First, I would like to start out with a few statements:

• The building was not built on a landfill.

• The building is not being infiltrated by groundwater.

• The building is not a sick building.

• Instead, there are deficiencies in the design, and the building was improperly constructed.

I will elaborate further below on the tests and studies that have been done, but I wanted to clarify those points up front.

It is with those issues in mind that Council must now decide whether to repair (at a substantial cost) a fairly new building, or to spend significantly more money for a new facility and abandon the existing site.

I will also say up front that I am sickened by all of these options, but this is the situation and the decision that the City Council and I were given.

History:

In 1998, the city recognized the need to build a new police station because the existing location on the first floor of City Hall had become too small for the growing department. The city contacted the major landowner, Pathway Communities, about potential sites, and began pursuing the preferred site on Ga. Highway 74 South.

Knowing that there had been some public dumping of garbage on the back section of the property, the city contracted with Gallett Associates for a limited Phase II Environmental Site Assessment.

The testing confirmed some landfill debris (concrete, rubber, plastic containers, glass, asphalt, and compost) on the back side of the property, not where the building is sited.

Borings were taken in the area of the landfill debris and soil and groundwater samples were taken ranging from 4 to 34 feet below the ground surface. The samples were tested for Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) contaminants that ranged from polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) to volatile organic compounds (VOCs) to heavy metals.

None of these contaminants were detected in any of the samples.

In 1999, the city obtained this approximately 10 acres of property on Hwy. 74 South to build a new police station for $136,000 and contracted with Cobb & Associates to design the new building and serve as the owner’s representative with the contractor during construction for $108,500.

In May 2000, the construction bid was awarded to Leslie Contracting, Inc., for $1.75 million.

Moisture Problems:

After only a couple of years in the new building, the police staff began seeing moisture problems, including bubbling of the flooring surface.

In 2004 and 2005, the flooring was repaired, the building sealed, and the site was partially re-graded to help deflect some of the surface stormwater away from the building, rather than toward the foundation. These costs were reimbursed by the contractor.

The problems continued, and in 2006, Council asked staff to put a priority on identifying and addressing the problems.

Fixing the Problems Inside:

In 2007, an assessment of the building by the engineering firm of GeoRay, Inc., identified several steps that needed to be taken on the interior of the facility.

These included renovating the HVAC system, and replacing some of the ceiling, drywall, and floor coverings.

At the same time, the city opted to expand the evidence room for the department’s needs. The construction contract was awarded to R.L. Ward for $593,250

In October of 2007, the Police Department was relocated from the building to their temporary location at Hwy. 74 and Aberdeen Parkway.

This was not due to any toxic substances in the building, but to allow the repair work to move forward as quickly as possible without interfering with their operation. The same approach was taken with the library expansion in 2004.

As part of the contract with R.L. Ward, staff worked with the contractor to mark and remove drywall in all the suspicious locations identified by the Police Department staff.

No mold was discovered in any of the areas, and one sample of drywall that was questionable was tested and came back negative for Stachybotrys (Black Mold).

Further testing revealed some minor spots of mold growing on the inside of the paper on the foil-backed insulation, concentrated toward the bottom of the walls.

Removal of the interior wall surfaces also revealed that the bottom metal runner in the room with the worst moisture problem extended past the slab, preventing the walls from sealing to the slab and allowing visible air gaps for the HVAC to pull in moist outside air.

Also included in the contract was cleaning of all the duct work with a chemical to destroy all mold and mildew.

The cleaning has been completed, but the subcontractor found no mold or mildew in the ductwork.

Exterior Issues:

At the same time, staff and a separate architectural consultant, Leo A. Daly, performed an assessment of the exterior of the building, and found several additional problems:

• Improper flashing installation behind the brick walls.

• Lack of proper flashing and weeps around windows.

• Drywall on the inside of exterior walls not extending to the roof deck.

• Lack of sealant and backer rods at the base of the EFIS.

• Insufficient air gap between the metal panels and the plywood substrate.

All of these items are contributing to the moisture problems.

The Decision:

This brings us to our decision, and I can tell you there is a good bit of disagreement among the council [members] about the best way to proceed.

I promise you that all of us are unhappy about the problem and the options available to us.

But we’ve got a very slow economy right now – sales tax revenue is down, and property tax revenues are expected to stay the same next year (usually we see about a 5 percent increase due to new growth and reassessments).

We must reach a decision that protects the employees working in the building in the most fiscally responsible manner possible.

While the information above is lengthy, I hope it helps to better explain some of the facts influencing our decision. Thank you for taking the time to read my response.

Harold K. Logsdon, mayor

Peachtree City, Ga.

login to post comments