29 trees

Councillors wander deep into forest but come out empty handed

By most accounts the reconstruction of Main Street in Picton has gone as well as could have been hoped. There has been a steady dialogue between Shire Hall and Main Street businesses. Signs, advertising and notices have kept residents and visitors current on developments and detours. And for the two peak months of the summer season, construction was stopped and Main Street returned to a serviceable state to welcome and serve visitors.

That is not to say the project has gone entirely smoothly. Shire Hall officials were embarrassed when it was discovered that new light standards failed to comply with Heritage Conservation District rules.

Now a new tempest has arisen over trees.

When it specified the requirements for the project, Shire Hall officials determined it would need 17 new trees—that it could salvage a dozen or so others. But last month, the County concluded that wouldn’t work and decided to replace all 29 trees instead. And rather than two-inch trunks the new trees would come with four-inch trunks. The cost of the additions and changes adds nearly $100,000 to the project.

The additional expense has some residents and council members crying foul. On a per tree basis the cost amounts to more than $5,400. How could the County spend so much on trees? The issue got a lengthy airing at a committee of council last week.

Some councillors wanted to revise the tendering process to enable council to dig into tender documents before they were let. Others were upset they learned of the change on the street. Still others suggested that staff ought not be spending $100,000 without council approval.

“We have to answer these questions,” said Gord Fox, councillor for Hallowell. “People are asking us, ‘Six grand for a tree? Are you crazy?’”

The County’s chief administrator said it was unfair and unreasonable to isolate a single line item from a multi-million dollar project. The winning and lowest bid for the project was for $4.4 million. Prices ranged to $6.3 million. The County’s options are to accept a bid or reject it.

Should the County have chosen a higher bid to get lower cost tree? It was unclear what council was hoping to achieve.

Councillor Diane O’Brien suggested that the County wasn’t bound by the tender to use the same tree vendor for the additional trees. But as Robert McAuley, commissioner for Engineering, Works and Development noted, going outside the tender was fraught with problems. Until the project is complete, the contractor would not authorize suppliers outside of its control on the site. There would also be issues of responsibility relating to potential damage and wear and tear on newly constructed sidewalks.

“Until completion, they own the job site,” said McAuley referring to the general contractor Taggart Construction. “Furthermore, there is no guarantee the cost would be less.”

Sophiasburgh councillor Kevin Gale said he would have felt better about the issue had the trees contract gone to a local supplier. McAuley reminded the councillor that the County chose the lowest bid—it could not open up a single line item for renegotiation, neither before or after the letting of the contract.

Councillor Roy Pennell, representing Ameliasburgh, objected to the fact that the change to the contract and added cost was not approved by council.

Chief Administrative Officer James Hepburn countered that staff regularly make decisions and changes to contracts—that it couldn’t work any other way. He added that council would receive a report detailing all the pertinent changes made along the way.

Some councillors saw time spinning away on the issue. Though popular in coffee shops, they suggest the matter lacked substance in the governance of a $50 million business.

“We are looking at the trees instead of the forest,” said Picton councillor Treat Hull. “By every measure this is a well-managed project.”

“The contractor is doing a good job,” said Hull. “And the municipality has done a great job in communicating and public relations.”

He suggested that council members might do a better job of explaining the context and rationale of County decisions with constituents, rather than merely regurgitating grievances heard on the street.

Sophiasburgh councillor Bill Roberts agreed.

“This is our cross to bear,” said Roberts.

“Yes, $100,000 is important. But this is major project and this amount is well within the contingency.”

He reminded his colleagues that they are facing a $600 million infrastructure deficit.

“Our job is to keep our focus on the strategic issues,” said Roberts. “That means budgeting our time and resources accordingly.”

Hallowell councillor Brad Nieman bristled at the suggestion council was wasting time on small-ball issues.

“There is an old saying that if you look after the cents, the dollars will look after themselves,” said Nieman.

He proposed that summary documents spelling out unspecified line items of tenders valued at more than $1 million to be presented to council, before those tenders are approved.

While some liked the idea, none could figure out how it would work. If a line item was more expensive in one bid but the overall bid was higher, would council choose the higher bid? Or perhaps contractors would permit the County to pick and choose between bids? The inexperience of council members in contract law and management was laid bare.

Wellington councillor Jim Dunlop pointed to the growing absurdity of the discussion.

“We are creating a monster,” said Dunlop.

Councillor Fox, too, could see the mess council was contemplating.

“I don’t want to make a stupid decision,” said Fox.

Most of his colleagues now realized they were in over their heads. When the vote came, only a couple of hands were raised in support of Nieman’s motion. But by then, the better part of an hour had elapsed.