East Lyme ― Officials are calling for the application of a liquid sealant to protect the recently renovated Public Safety Building from leaks that result from driving rain.

A $14,000 water infiltration study from Silver Petrucelli + Associates, the same firm who oversaw the renovation of the 30,000-square-foot building, “distilled” its findings into three recommendations ranging from $72,863 for the sealant to $1.9 million for a rain screen system.

The police department, dispatch center, emergency operations center and fire marshal's office converged into the $7.4 million building a year ago. The previous three years – including two municipal election cycles – were laden with controversy over the decision to retrofit the old Honeywell building on the edge of town into a public safety hub.

The report from the architects said the evidence of leaks was visible in water stains in ceiling panels or at window locations.

First Selectman Kevin Seery this week described the interior leaks as minimal and isolated to the dispatch center and sergeants area.

Asked if there was any current evidence of mold, Seery said there was “absolutely none.”

The architects said their own testing in October and a heavy December storm corroborated that leaks are caused by “significant amounts of water that are wind driven” against the building before seeping inside through micro-cracks. In the rear of the building, the report also cited water being absorbed into the hollow parts of the cinder blocks before flowing back out of the building at the base, with evidence of past repairs to the mortar.

Seery said there was unanimous agreement on the sealant approach when he met last week with Police Chief Michael Finkelstein, public works director Joe Bragaw, deputy public works director Bill Scheer, finance director Kevin Gervais and architect Bill Silver.

The report said the air, weather and vapor coating is easy to apply, relatively inexpensive, blocks penetration of water and reduces energy loss. It requires re-application about every five to 10 years when signs of water infiltration become visible.

No documentation has been found indicating the building was sealed previously, according to the first selectman.

The architects also recommended a third approach that would cost approximately $294,054.

“The two more expensive options would change the whole appearance of the building and it would involve a very significant cost increase,” Seery said.

Voters in the summer of 2021 approved a $200,000 replacement for the building’s roof using federal COVID-19 pandemic relief funds. At the town meeting, first selectman candidate Camille Alberti complained about mold at the bottom of a wall at the rear of the building but was told the black spores were mildew. Clerk of the Works William Cornelius told residents the mildew showed up when the HVAC system was off for four to six weeks during construction. He added the spores were removed using a mildew treatment and the HVAC system has since been reactivated.

Town Building Committee meeting minutes from September of 2021 said members authorized $9,727 to waterproof an interior wall on the east side of the building after heavy rains had caused “a good amount of mold.” Those meeting minutes and ones from November 2021 include references to leaking masonry and the need to provide some sort of waterproofing method. The issue was described as a maintenance issue secondary to the roof replacement.

Committee members at the time emphasized there was only $1,700 remaining in the renovation budget after the expenses authorized that month, according to meeting minutes.

Seery said funds for the sealant project now will come out of excess proceeds from a previous bond sale.

Silver Petrucelli + Associates will oversee the bidding process and report back to selectmen once the bids come in, according to Seery. He estimated the presentation from the architects will be sometime around March.

e.regan@theday.com