Questions

It was the wrong question. Put to the wrong person. The answer was, unsurprisingly, unsatisfactory.

A committee of council was set last week to approve the purchase of four brand new snowplowing trucks when Bill Roberts, the councillor from Sophiasburgh, asked the Acting Director of Operations, Pat Heffernan, if the trucks were needed. It was, after all, $1 million of taxpayer money. Heffernan had prepared a fulsome report Roberts had surely read. But the councillor’s question was posed specifically for the benefit of the public and media.

Heffernan gamely explained that two of the new vehicles would replace 2001 models he believed wouldn’t pass their next safety inspection. The remaining two would replace a 2004- and a 2005-model truck. These vehicles will be slotted in as back-up units.

Two more new snowplowing trucks were ordered last fall adding, in total, six new vehicles to the County’s snowplowing fleet.

Heffernan said the new trucks would enable him to shorten extended plough routes “taking back the four contract routes we had to take over at the last minute, last fall.”

And thus, we arrive at the issue; and the real question this new council might have asked: Why are we bringing this previously contracted service back in house? What is the economic argument? The logistical or operational explanation? What is the rationale for reversing a policy decision made just a few years ago?

It matters little how operations folks buy the gear they need to fulfil their mandate—as long as they are being prudent and careful with taxpayer funds. Far more worrying is when the municipality changes policy on the fly—and then doubles down on a “last minute” or “emergency” decision.

Last August the municipality knew it had a problem with its contracted snowplowing requirements. Just a single bidder responded to its request for tender on 10 routes. The contractor’s bid was much higher than the service provided the previous season.

Negotiations resulted in a slightly lower cost. Meanwhile another service provider emerged who would cover four routes at a substantially better rate, but needed an eight-year deal in order to justify the purchase of equipment to do the work. Shire Hall cancelled the original tender and restarted conversations with the original bidder aimed at lowering the cost.

By September those talks had stalled and municipal folks had begun arrangements to bring snow plowing back in house. Council agreed to a deal with the second contractor for five routes (adding another route when negotiations with the first supplier failed.)

Council liked the staff’s presentation. A lot. Five routes covered by the new contractor would cost an estimated $704,375 for the winter season. Meanwhile internalizing five routes, including financing six new trucks and hiring 12 seasonal drivers, was estimated to cost just $315,000 for the season. Suddenly some councillors were talking excitedly about bringing in all ten routes in house. (Staff explained it didn’t have the capacity to manage all ten routes.)

So impressed was council that few bothered to ask why this service had been contracted out in the first place. What had caused the County to get rid of its plows in the not so distant past? And why had previous council’s opted to use outside suppliers to provide this service?

Only Dianne O’Brien (former council member) asked the most pertinent question: Why had the municipality only received one bid on its original tender? It was an important question. But there was little curiosity by council to pursue it.

Works chief Robert McAuley explained that one supplier had exited the business and few others were equipped to meet the requirements. It was an answer. But not a good one.

Ultimately this issue appears to be a purchasing problem. A failure in procurement.

But rather than investigate that breakdown, and determine what went wrong, council instead pivoted like a Javex bottle weather vane on a decade-old policy and greenlighted the plan to buy unbudgeted trucks and hire more staff.

It may deliver savings just as Shire Hall folks predict. I proclaim no experience or expertise in this business. And it is true, the last council was in a bind—they had to do something to ensure County roads were maintained this past winter. And they were.

I am suggesting, however, that a new council might have demanded a more rigorous explanation of this significant policy shift. Last week they approved spending of $1,090,000 for four trucks, on top of $566,000 for two trucks last fall, to undertake this new business. They are committing to hiring a dozen new folks—some permanent, most seasonal.

This is a major policy shift with profound implications on County operations for years to come. It may yet prove to be best way forward. It may save us money and deliver a better service. But we don’t know that. Because we didn’t ask the right questions.

And now it is too late.

rick@wellingtontimes.ca