Chris Clegg
South Peace News
High Prairie town council continues to face an angry public over its handling of the sale of the former hospital land.
Several delegations expressed their concerns at council’s Feb. 13 meeting.
The land was offered to the Town in April 2023, says Alberta Health Services (AHS). They withdrew their $148,000 offer Aug. 11 after council had nearly four months to consider the offer. The land sold for $1.75 million meaning council had to the potential to buy, resell and keep over $1.6 million in profits.
Council never disclosed to the public they refused the offer despite later claiming, “council strives to maintain and open and transparent disclosure of information to our ratepayers.”
It was the process that concerned people, however.
Dan Vandermeulen wanted to know why council did not ask AHS to make the offer public and go to the people for an answer and/or direction.
“Everyone is asking why we didn’t know about this,” Vandermeulen told council.
“I think it (warranted) a full discussion in the public.”
He also asked where in the minutes is the decision recorded.
“You can’t say no without a public motion,” said Vandermeulen.
“That’s my position.”
Mayor Brian Panasiuk said council thought the land should be donated; however, it was not one of the reasons cited in council’s message to the public published in the Jan. 31 edition of South Peace News.
“We should get it for a dollar,” said Panasiuk.
“That is what we were pursuing.”
Vandermeulen then called council’s negotiations in closed session a misuse of in-camera session, now called closed sessions.
Darcy Foster later spoke and was more direct.
“You dropped the ball,” he told council.
“We lost the hospital property.”
Like Vandermeulen, Foster suggested council should have gone to the people of the town for input.
And he also addressed council’s claim they were worried over reclamation of a culvert on the property by saying $1.75 million would “move a lot of dirt.”
“Guys, c’mon, I’m not buying what you’re selling” Foster said before suggesting councillors should ask themselves if they should be sitting in their chairs.
Sharon Cox also addressed council and was concerned the public was not consulted.
“We should have been ecstatic,” she said referring to the $148,000 offer to buy.
“You totally ignored us,” she added. “It was your obligation to come to us. You have let us down.”
“I have no confidence,” added Tammy Kaleta.
“All of you should step down,” she added to a round of applause.
Panasiuk addressed the concerns.
“We did not handle that land the way we should have,” he conceded.
“When I look back. . .we could have released that out. We weren’t trying to hide it. There were some mistakes made.”
Council issued a news release Jan. 27 citing concerns over liability and other concerns.
“Looking back at our concerns, they turned out to be non-issues. The land sold quickly and for an amount that would have made it worthwhile. If we knew then what we knew now, the decision may have been different.”
“May” but still not guaranteed council would have sold and generated a huge profit.
Council has still not explained why they undervalued the property so much during deliberations, not what the vote was, if there ever was one.