Deeper in the hole

County won’t sell aggregate from Ridge Road pit

A committee of the new County council was presented, last week, with an opportunity to make some money and an opportunity to save some. It chose neither.

In doing so it highlighted the challenge of reducing the County taxpayers’ burden.

In the first circumstance, Public Works Chief Robert McAuley reported interest on the part of a neighbouring pit owner to purchase aggregate (gravel, sand and such) from the County pit on Ridge Road—a pit the County purchased just over a year ago. He said the neighbour, Power Concrete, had nearly depleted the resource next door and would one day be in the market to buy—if the County was interested in selling some material.

Talks with the potential purchaser have not proceeded to estimates of costs and quantities but McAuley believed the resource might sustain about 100,000 tonnes of external sales from the pit. With the going rate for this material ranging between $4.50 and $7 a tonne the opportunity represents an incremental revenue stream of potentially several hundred thousand dollars.

Picton Councillor Brian Marisett led the objection to the proposed sale. He recalled the public’s sensitivity to the controversy that has swirled around the pit—as it lies within the environmentally sensitive Waring’s Creek watershed.

He said that selling material from the Ridge Road pit would accelerate the depletion of the resource and increase pressure to dig deeper and farther afield.

“In the eyes of the public we were doing the right thing for once,” said Marisett in describing the County’s purchase of the pit last year and the subsequent plan to use the resource for municipal projects.

But in recommending the limited sale of material, McAuley noted that it costs his department about $750,000 a year to service the debt taken on to purchase the pit.

Hillier Councillor Alec Lunn is a veteran of the battles in the early ’90s between residents and the former landowner. An OMB hearing restricted the size of the pit to 36 acres—about a quarter of the size originally planned.

Lunn agreed with Marisett that potential gain from selling material from the pit wasn’t worth reopening these old wounds.

“If we sell aggregate from this pit, we will surely hear about it,” cautioned Lunn. “It will certainly open a can of worms.”

Thus ended the revenue opportunity.

Later in the meeting, the committee was asked to approve the purchase of a wheel loader used to put aggregate into trucks or crushing equipment. The recommended bid price was $165,410. A budget of $165,000 for the piece of heavy equipment had already been approved in the 2010 budget—but McAuley needed council’s okay to spend $400 more than the budgeted amount. For McAuley it was a simple housekeeping procedure— but for a new council eager to begin rooting out savings, it seemed a good place to start.

North Marysburgh Councillor Robert Quaiff suggested that since the County had done without the loader for the better part of the year—perhaps it wasn’t needed after all.

Caught a bit off guard McAuley, fearing council might scupper the deal, asked the council members to allow him to bring a more comprehensive report to the next council meeting.

“This is an essential piece of equipment,” said McAuley. “I apologize for the brevity of this report but it was an approved expenditure in the 2010 budget.”

Councillor Kevin Gale threw cold water on the enthusiasm of some new councillors to cut costs.

“It is an easy thing to kill big ticket items,” said Gale. “But this was already approved and we should get on with it.”

Quaiff responded by suggesting that as a newly elected councillor he wasn’t prepared to rubber stamp a large expenditure without a fuller explanation of the need.

“It behooves me and other councillors around this table to question all new spending,” said Quaiff, “and not simply approve purchases just because the last council did.”

Quaiff agreed he would wait to read McAuley’s full report next week.