McBride Council debates councillors’ role in Public Works projects
By Abigail Popple, Local Journalism Initiative Reporter, RMG
McBride councillors discussed the role Council should play in Public Works projects at the June 24th regular meeting of Council. A staff report from CAO Jeanette McDougall included updates on the cemetery fencing project and alternate water source feasibility study, which councillors say left them feeling out of the loop.
McDougall’s report on village projects also included a mention of the cemetery fencing project. In the report, McDougall described the cemetery fence as a work in progress, with a report for Council expected by the July 8th meeting.
At the May 27th Council meeting, councillors reviewed a quote from contractors bidding to complete the project, and they directed staff to look into lower-cost materials for the project. Bennett said she was confused about why the project was delayed again after being put up for a bid, and asked for an update on where staff were with the project.
Runtz told Bennett councillors had asked staff to reassess the cemetery fencing project because the quotes provided by contractors were too high.
Kolida also expressed concerns about how Council was kept out of the loop in the project.
“Our previous [meeting] was a committee of the whole, we had a motion. We said we’re going to buy that fence, hire someone to install it and save $100,000. Now, that has been completely thrown out the window,” he said. “I’m a councillor here, I made a motion, and I voted on that motion, and it got thrown right out the window. Does the councillor have any authority here, or why are we here?”
Runtz said costs came back higher than expected when the Village realized the fencing materials it had purchased were not in the correct shape they needed to be, and adjusting the material brought up the cost.
Bennett said the Village had decided to use the material as it was when they opened the bid.
“It was put out for bid, and we were going with that material. Then there was no discussion with Council after that,” she said.
Kolida said further decisions on the cemetery fencing should be brought back to Council, and asked if the forthcoming report on the project would be for discussion or to make a decision on hiring a contractor.
McDougall said staff would present a report to Council on July 8th, and that Strain has had several meetings to discuss fence pricing and getting quotes for the installation.
Strain said he followed Council’s directions to get prices for other materials, after councillors said the six-foot wrought iron fence would be too expensive. He found prices for a four-foot wrought iron fence, a chain link fence and a wood fence, which will be included in the July 8th report.
Frear suggested using a hedge instead of a fence, which he said may be cheaper to purchase than fencing material.
Kolida said Council should decide whether to use fencing, hedges or cement pads with benches – ideas discussed during the May 27th meeting – before moving forward.
Bennett asked when the Village decided it wouldn’t use the previously purchased fencing material Runtz had mentioned. Runtz said there wasn’t a meeting about the decision.
“That should have been brought to Council because we had already made the motions and we had already put it out for bid,” Bennett said. “We were happy with what we decided, and then it got changed.”
Runtz said staff looked at the material and realized it wasn’t suitable for fencing.
“It’s in every graveyard around. It’s for looks,” Kolida said of the material. “I just want to know, whose decision is this? Is this out of our hands?”
Runtz said the decision didn’t come before council. Kolida said he was upset that a decision Council had made together could get thrown out without discussion. Runtz asked McDougall why the previously purchased material was deemed unsuitable.
McDougall said she’d review previous meetings and put together a timeline of how decisions about the cemetery fencing have been made, which will be included in the July 8th report. Runtz asked for the price of hedging to be included in the report.
Kolida asked not to have another meeting about cemetery fencing if council’s directions would be thrown out later. He suggested starting from scratch, and having Council come up with three ideas for what could surround the cemetery, then sending them to the CAO.
Runtz said he’d prefer another committee of the whole meeting, where staff can be involved and make recommendations, to avoid another problem like purchasing unsuitable material
“I think we did the right thing by not going along with the initial [material],” he added. “I’m not sure if we handled that right.”
Kolida said he’s spoken to residents who would prefer having benches and lights around the cemetery instead of a fence. He asked if there was a way to get public input on the project, and McDougall said residents can share opinions during meetings about the cemetery fencing or staff could issue a survey to residents.
Council moved to direct staff to issue a survey on the cemetery fencing project.
Kolida said he’s still concerned about Council’s lack of involvement in some decisions. He said a similar situation happened when council moved to build a dam and the project was cancelled.
“We are here to represent the people. We are here to make the decisions,” Kolida said. “When a decision is voted on and passed, it should not be changed unless it comes back to us with [explanations] of why.”
Runtz said the dam Kolida was referring to was tabled as staff look for a consultant who can clarify legal details on the next steps. He added that other updates on the project have come before council, but Kolida said he hasn’t heard any updates.
“These are just things that are slipping through our fingertips… I don’t know why I’m here,” he said.
Bennett echoed his comments.
McDougall said she would do more research on the cemetery fencing. Kolida asked for councillors to be the first ones to know of any future updates on the project.
The Goat reached out to McDougall, Kolida and Bennett for comment, but did not receive a response.
