ATV’s, fire bans and 1500 percent increases were all part of the most recent Woodlands County Council meeting

During the May 19, 2020, regular meeting of Woodlands County Council, there were concerns raised about the current provincial fire ban in place for the Forest Protection Area. The ban includes Woodlands County but does not include Whitecourt. Councillor Kluin said that his neighbours approached him after they had spent the weekend camping. “Fish and Wildlife, whoever they were, were there and they were going from site to site, but there were literally fires everywhere. Either there is a fire ban, and it affects everybody, or there is no fire ban. It cannot be to the discretion of the officers running around out there visiting these people.” He said that it leads to confusion. “I’m getting calls from my ratepayers on who can and can’t have fires. I want to get something as to the rules and how they are getting enforced.”

Interim CAO Frank Gordon responded by saying that Forestry and Fish and Wildlife did do patrols. “I haven’t talked to the forestry representative yet on whether any fines were levied. I know forestry was very active and were aware of the situation.” He said he would follow up and bring the information to Council. Councillor Kluin continued. “It’s for the public more than for us. They need to know.” Councillor McQueen echoed the concerns. “I agree with Dale, one hundred percent.” He acknowledged that most people are good about following restrictions but that there will always be those who don’t.

Speaking of rules, Councillor Govenlock brought up the use of all-terrain vehicles (ATV’s) within the county, and he suggested that the practice end altogether. “Perhaps this municipality needs to look at a total ban on the use of ATV’s. That’s probably one of the biggest concerns that I see is the expectation that residents from outside this municipality can come and use our ditches and our lands just to turn them into mud holes and create nothing but a mess. It’s an inconvenience and a cost for landowners, and it’s something that should probably receive serious consideration.” There were no comments made from any other members of Council concerning his statement.

One particularly heated exchange focused on the statement of revenues and expenses. Councillor Govenlock started his query by saying that he would be “a little surprised” if his colleagues did not make the same observation that he had. He then addressed Alicia Bourbeau, Director of Corporate Services. “It’s my understanding that we develop a budget for a particular purpose with the expectation that administration remains in those budget guidelines unless they receive an endorsement from Council to modify what those budget allocations are provided for.”

Councillor Govenlock then zeroed in on a specific line item in the chart. “Emergency services went from $23,000 up to an expenditure of $114,000 for a four hundred percent increase. Can you explain that one?” Alicia then asked him to provide all of his queries together. “I will mark them all in my book, and then I will be able to pull the actual details, and I can email all of Council before the end of today if that’s fine with you?” Councillor Govenlock responded. “No, Mam, I want the public to have all the same information that you’re providing to Council concerning how it is that administration feels it’s ok to over expend.”

While Councillor Govenlock spoke, Director Bourbeau got up from her chair and was putting together information as quickly as possible. He continued. “If I go to common services and to vehicle equipment, we go from $27,000 to $387,000, that’s a 1500 percent increase over and above the budget. So, my question again is, is there a budget that requires Administration to stay within the spending allocation or again is this just a slush fund, and we spend money any way we want?”

At this point, CAO Gordon Frank joined the conversation. “Council has a policy regarding expenditure authority. When Council passes the budget, there are certain guidelines in it, and I can reassure all of Council that we adhere to that and that any expenditure that is outside of that policy is brought back to Council for consideration. Those actual expenditures are still within that expenditure authority.”

Councillor Govenlock continued his line of questioning. “What particular policy would Mr. Frank be referring to that would allow Administration a 1500 percent variation from what the budget looks like? Five percent? Maybe, ten percent? But not 100 percent and not 1500 percent.” Frank then reiterated his previous statement. “The policy is the procurement policy that outlines the authority to expend money as well as signing authority that gives us, within the limits of Council, authorization to enter into agreement. No policy has an expenditure cap on it, and it has a certain limit when items are brought back to Council for reconsideration.”

Councillor Govenlock quickly responded. “That is my point, Mr. Frank, this did not come to Council for reconsideration. It’s a decision that, as I understand it, Administration has made. It is the first indication that I have that Administration has chosen to ignore the budget guidelines, which were excessive to begin with, and so the concern council needs to be aware of is, who is pulling the strings? Whose got their hands on the reigns to make sure that Administration does not randomly spend money that is beyond the financial capability that the municipality has? That’s almost three hundred thousand dollars that now we have to come up with, to adjust somehow in the budget because we made an expenditure decision that Council wasn’t aware of and that wasn’t budgeted for.”

The final comment of the discussion went to Frank as he repeated, again, the previous statements he had made. “Administration continues to adhere to the existing policy that allows us to expend a budget once the budget passes. Council gives the authority for Administration to spend within the current policy. I will reiterate that we are adhering to that.” The next Council meeting will be on Tuesday, June 2, at 9:30 am, and it is viewable via live-stream through their YouTube channel, Woodlands County.

Towards the end of the meeting, Council went into a closed portion, which resulted in Councillor Govenlock being removed from appointed boards and stripped from the deputy mayor rotation due to a letter to the editor that was previously published. To read why this action took place, and what it means for Woodlands County residents, flip to page 7 for Woodlands County press release.