Hay leaseholder agreement sparks controversy at Woodlands County meeting. “I don’t like the optics on this,” -Mayor Burrows

A seemingly simple item on the March 23 Woodlands County meeting agenda ended up sparking a long debate, including multiple defeated motions. Two standing hay license agreements were up for renewal. The first was a 16-acre parcel of land located just off Flats Road. The previous leaseholder was the only bid received. Council’s conversation was short, resulting in a new contract for Merrifield Farms Ltd. The second hay license agreement did not go as smoothly.

As the expired lease contract holder, Councillor Govenlock could not speak or vote. The land, 145 acres at the airport, received two tenders—one from Govenlock and one from a registered company (1775203 AB Ltd). The highest bidder was the registered company who outbid Councillor Govenlock by 39 cents. Govenlock held the lease for two previous contracts, both for five years (three years with two-year extension options).

The new contract did not include the two-year extension option since more land was recently cleared at the airport. Woodlands County Administration recommended three years without an extension so that if they wanted to add the new ground into a future agreement, they could do so sooner.

Councillors McQueen, Kluin, and Rennie seemed adamant that Councillor Govenlock be awarded a contract rather than see the agreement go to the highest bidder. Simultaneously, Councillors Prestidge, Kusch, and Mayor Burrows felt the highest bidder should take the contract. With three on one side and three on the other, and Councillor Govenlock unable to vote because of his financial interest, tied votes ensued.

Confusion seemed to be a factor as Councillors McQueen and Kluin thought there was still a contract in place with Councillor Govenlock and that the rug was being pulled out from under him. Then, Councillor McQueen made a motion to award the contract to Councillor Govenlock at the same rate he was paying previously ($34.60/acre), rather than the new rate he bid at for the tender ($41.30). Mayor Burrows said he didn’t understand how they could do that, and Councillor Prestidge echoed those sentiments asking, “how can we change the tender midstream? Mr. Govenlock’s contract was over, and it went back to tender. Mr. Govenlock had the opportunity to increase his bid.”

Councillor Rennie asked who the mystery bidder was. He said he wanted to know if the person was an experienced operator. Given that the contract is for hay, it would stand to reason that the person is a farmer, but he stated that he wouldn’t vote to give the contract to the highest bidder as there were “unknowns.” Andre Bachand, Director of Infrastructure for Woodlands County, said it was a local person with cattle and a forestry company. Another variable, the new land cleared at the airport that Administration will look to add to future contracts, somehow became entangled in the conversation. Councillor Rennie wanted to know if the unknown bidder would be able to handle the new land. Administration relayed that the new ground had zero to do with the contract at hand.

From there, Councillor Prestidge made a motion to award the contract to the numbered company that had the highest bid. The vote resulted in a tie, with Councillors McQueen, Kluin, and Rennie voting against it. A tie equals a defeated motion. At that point, the conversation switched again, with Councillor Kluin bringing up the timing. He said it was not fair for the currently expired leaseholder, Govenlock, to be out the land and left trying to find hay in April. Councillor Prestidge disagreed. “He knew that the lease was coming up for renewal, and there’s no guarantee he would get that lease (again). Farming is like any other business. You have to be prepared that you may not get that lease if your bid is too low. I feel for him if he can’t find any more hay, but this was a tender, and the results are what they are.”

Mayor Burrows questioned why none of this came up before. “Why didn’t this issue come up on the past hay lease? If the timing of this one is bad, then the timing of the last one is also bad, but nobody said anything. What is the issue here?” Councillor Kluin said that making the contract at this time of year was not good business. “You can’t be losing your hay crop in April when you’re going to start haying within two or three months. There is no way in hell you are going to find hay, and if you can’t find it, then you’re going to buy it, and it’s going to cost you one hell of a pile of money.”

Mayor Burrows questioned why no one was asking to change the policy or create a new one. Councillor McQueen stated that it was not a question of policy. However, a policy would provide guidance. Had one been in place, the discussion could have been avoided. Bachand explained that hay lease agreements usually come to Council in January or February, but some documentation was hard to find, pushing the item to a later meeting. That, however, did not change the expiry of the contract, which is December 31 of the final term year, giving plenty of notice to the leaseholder of an upcoming tender process.

To move Council onwards, CAO Gordon Frank said Council could reject the current tenders and offer the expired leaseholder (Govenlock) a one-year contract giving him time to find hay for the following year. He also stated that it would give administration time to create a plan for the newly cleared airport property. Councillor Kusch did not like the idea. “This contract came due at the end of last year, and there was no guarantee that his contract would continue. He should have been looking for a secondary field. I don’t feel like rejecting the offers and going with a lower bid is beneficial to the county.” Mayor Burrows agreed with him. Councillor McQueen did not. “Well, it’s obvious that Councillor Kusch has never farmed and doesn’t have a clue when it comes to making different business arrangements. I don’t care if it’s beneficial to the county or not.”

Councillor Kluin made a motion to reject the tenders. Councillors Rennie and McQueen joined him in voting in favour, but the other three (Kusch, Prestidge, Burrows) voted against it. Another tie meant another defeat. Mayor Burrows seemed baffled. “I can’t understand how this municipality has been awarding hay leases all this time, and all of a sudden, this one is such an issue. If we are operating outside of policy, then I would go with the suggestion to clean it up and go with the one here, but I don’t have that information to say whether we are in or outside of policy.”

Bachand responded that there was not a policy in place for leasing county property. Mayor Burrows then made a motion to have Administration draft a lease land policy for all county-owned properties. The motion passed unanimously but still left the main issue lingering. Oddly, the topics of contract timing had not come up during previous negotiations, nor did it come up when Administration let Council know that the tenders were going out. It was only once the results were in that the issues came forward. Mayor Burrows pointed it out, stating, “I don’t like the optics on this.”

Councillor Prestidge motioned again to award the contract to the highest bidder, the numbered company, likely thinking everyone understood things better now, but the vote was defeated. With no decision made, they tabled the topic until their next meeting.