To the Editor:
In May 2010, Lorne Buryn asked County of St. Paul council to build approximately 200 feet of road to provide him with additional access to a proposed build-site on his quarter. He already has road access to that quarter at its NE corner; this access was upgraded in the fall of 2009 through the county road construction work. Council passed a motion to construct the 200 feet of road.
At its Aug. 10th meeting, council was presented with a proposal by Reeve Robert Bouchard to extend the original 200 feet for the entire half mile along Buryn’s east boundary. Council was told that there was a hill on site that would be cut down to provide sufficient dirt to continue the road. Council was also told that there was an area of wetlands along the proposed route and approval of Alberta Environment would be required before it could be filled in. Council also understood that the extension was not part of any capital plan and it was not included in any budget, and agreed to a motion made by Coun. Maxine Fodness to approve the project.
At its September meeting, I appeared before council to object to the road, for reasons that are not relevant to what was about to happen. At that meeting, Reeve Bouchard removed himself from chambers, citing perceived conflict of interest because he farms leased land south of the proposed road.
On Nov. 1, Public Works Superintendent Leo deMoissac mobilized his crews and commenced construction of the road. Alberta Environment’s approval to fill in the wetlands along the route had not been received. I was concerned. County CAO Sheila Kitz was on site but my attempts to speak to her were deflected by Mr. deMoissac. I asked him how he could commence the road construction without Alberta Environment approval. He told me he intended to come back and build that portion later, after approval.
Public Works first constructed an unapproved road for a half mile directly south of the portion that had been approved by motion of council. The approved half mile of road was constructed subsequently. The unapproved portion of the road extends to the northwest corner of those lands farmed by Robert Bouchard.
On Nov. 9, I attended the regular meeting of council, hoping that council would discuss this renegade road construction program. It was not on the agenda, but at the end of the agenda, there was an unidentified In-Camera item. “In-Camera” means “In-Private.” When council emerged from its in-private meeting, they unanimously passed a new motion – without any public discussion whatsoever. Coun. Frank Sloan’s motion to extend the construction on the Buryn Road south to include an additional half mile of road in order to utilize the dirt that resulted from cutting down the hill on the originally approved road construction was carried.
Council has passed a motion to retroactively validate the unauthorized road construction that had been undertaken by the Public Works Department. I was not surprised, and I understand them needing to officially deal with this unauthorized road now that it’s been built. I also understand that they would want to present a united position. But I have the following observations and questions.
1. The original request from Mr. Buryn was for approximately 200 feet of road. We now have a full mile of road that was neither in any capital plan, nor included in any budget. We also have a full mile of road to maintain every year.
2. The original budget for the half mile of road was $100,000. What does 200 feet of road cost? What does a full mile of road cost?
3. Why should ratepayers have to pay for a second access road upgraded to Mr. Buryn’s property, given that he already has access from the north which was upgraded in 2009?
4. Why did Reeve Bouchard remove himself from council chambers when I addressed council on Sept. 14, citing perceived conflict of interest, when he didn’t feel he needed to abstain from the original discussion and vote on the motion to build the road?
5. From the latest motion, it is clear that there was unexpected excess dirt on site. A qualified person would have been able to determine the amount of dirt on site and could have advised council on any deficit or surplus dirt at the time of the initial discussion. Why didn’t that happen?
6. What was the rush to start construction before Alberta Environment approval had been obtained? Is it a risk to invest in that construction on the assumption of approval?
7. When the Public Works staff determined they had excess dirt, why didn’t they just wait a few days to return to council on Nov. 9 for further direction?
8. Who authorized Public Works to build the additional half mile of road?
9. Why did council have the Nov. 9 discussion in private? The public should be able to observe these deliberations and understand where our various members of council sit on the issue – on every issue. If council chooses to decide embarrassing or sensitive issues in private, we may never know if individual members are performing in the best interest of the county – or if other interests are in play.
Val Pratch
County of St. Paul resident