No Holds Barred Discussion at Chipman Public Forum

 Michelle Pinon - News Advertiser

Lamont County residents had no shortage of opinions or suggestions during the Coffee with a Councillor session at the Chipman Golden Seniors Club on Feb. 20.

Two dozen people gathered there to discuss several topics including the Chipman area fire training centre, the bridge on Range Road 185, and public works review that council unanimously approved at its Feb. 11 council meeting.

Lamont County Div. 2 Councillor Aaron Wick and Div. 3 Councillor David Diduck, who serves as Reeve, were on hand to for the spirited discussion.

Coun. Wick fielded the questions as to the total cost of the regional fire training centre. Wick said the total cost was $538,576 with revenue through external usage of just over $8,297. That prompted the attendee to call it a “white elephant” to which Wick responded, “I think it’s a waste of money.” He also pointed out that Shell has its own training centre along with Sherwood Park and Vermilion which has an internationally certified Emergency Training Centre that’s only two hours away.

One attendee pointed out that regional fire chief has tentative bookings for the facility, but another attendee said county residents should not have to continue to fund it.

In terms of the bridge on Range Road 185. The Village of Chipman did receive a $1.3 million provincial grant to repair the bridge with Lamont County council agreeing to provide a down payment of 25 percent.

An additional assessment was done by engineers and the Village of Chipman applied for a $1.2 million grant in 2023 that was subsequently denied. Plans are now to look into installation of a culvert which would have to be approved by the federal department of fisheries.

According to information supplied by Lamont County Communications Coordinator Jay Zaal, “Public Works conducted a traffic counts on RR 185 between Hwy15 and TWP 550 from April 26 to May 3, 2023 (just south of the intersection at TWP550 & RR185).

There was an average daily volume of 203 vehicles south of the bridge, and 199 vehicles north of the bridge (the slight difference is attributed to there being two residences between the two traffic counter locations).”

 On the topic of the public works review, Reeve Diduck said he was the one who made the motion for the public works review and for it to be completed by an external body. “It might cost the county 50 or $75,000. Very well might, but I think at the end of the day it’ll bring forward some operational issues.”

Diduck also pointed out that council cannot conduct the review because its prevue is governance, not staffing. “We hire one person, that’s the CAO. He reports to council. All the information is through that one individual.”

While there was some discussion by public works employees in attendance that would not participate in a previous survey or were not currently willing to speak up in fear of retribution by management. They also felt council wasn’t getting the truth from management. Concern over getting fired was voiced as well, but Wick said they were attending the meeting as ratepayers and assured them they would not get fired.    

Diduck said it was up to employees to go to their boss with concerns and if they are not addressed to go to the CAO. He also pointed out that ratepayers can still go to council if issues are not resolved internally.

Diduck expanded on some of the review in a follow up email on Feb. 21. He stated, “Council feels the public works review is necessary as we have had complaints from ratepayers as to the efficiency and effectiveness of some our public works endeavors.

Some key points Council would be looking at is

• Review of the organizational structure and lines of reporting to ensure responsibilities are properly allocated

• Review staffing levels to identify potential changes

• Review operational procedures to identify areas of efficiency and cost effectiveness

• Review current operations and maintenance practices

• Review recruitment, promotion, and training practices to identify opportunities to develop a more effective workforce.

• Assess the use of third-party services providers versus in house resources for equipment maintenance, road maintenance, capital projects, and hauling functions.

This item is not budgeted for in our current budget. We finalize our budget in mid-April when we set out tax rate. Funds for this project would likely have to come from operating reserves.”