Richard Froese
South Peace News
Big Lakes County council is disappointed about a consultant’s report that examined the level of service for maintaining ditches and water management in the public works department.
At its regular meeting Oct. 9, council passed a motion that council recommends further information be obtained for the ditching and water management level-of-service review.
Administration recommended council pass a motion to approve the report dated Oct. 2 from RI Environmental and Engineering completed by RI senior engineer Ian Cosh.
But that was quickly quashed by council.
Reeve Tyler Airth gave the report a failing grade.
“We pay a consultant and he gives us a report that tells us nothing,” Airth says.
North Gilwood – Triangle Councillor Jim Zabolotniuk agrees.
“What we spent on the report was a waste of time and a waste of money,” Zabolotniuk says.
Council requested a level of service for the public works department during a council workshop in June 2023.
Ditching and water management is the latest of six components council ordered for review in public works.
The reeve was uncertain on how to respond to the recent report.
“I don’t know how we move forward on this,” Airth says.
Council then asked for direction from Ben Letemplier, who became the director of public works for the county in August.
“Would you feel comfortable bringing back some of your recommendations from the report – how to address water issues in the county?” Airth says.
Letemplier agreed to dig into the report and draft his own recommendations to present to council.
The consultant offered his own recommendations and findings in the report.
“The maintenance of roadside ditches in support of roadway management is efficient and effective,” Cosh says in the executive summary of the report.
“Adequate budget allocations support active management and reactive maintenance.”
He suggests additional evaluation outside of the study could be pursued to provide further insight into water management projects.
“The water management project inventory should be assessed for current condition and maintenance needs,” Cosh says.
“It is recommended that the county consider adding water management projects to the asset management planning for the county..
He suggests it include completing inspections, compiling asset condition information, planning rehabilitation activities and contributing to a budget reserve for future rehabilitation.
“The recommended alternative to the management of this asset type is to reclaim and dispose of these assets to reduce the liabilities for the future maintenance of these ditches,” Cosh says.
He suggests the county engage citizens in the process to gauge community interest in changing the level of service offered.
Council could also hold an additional workshop to discuss the report, he notes
In the conclusion, he says drainage and water management projects should be inspected and managed.
“Multi-year plans do not currently exist to support adequate funding reserves to be built in preparation for larger water management rehabilitation projects when they are needed,” Cosh says.
“Where formal drainage system maintenance plans are not being completed and documented annually, this policy requirement should be reviewed and either be removed or adequately resourced and completed.”
“Should developing capacity for internal water management project maintenance and rehabilitation be the management method chosen, it is expected that this would be the least cost alternative for the effective management of this asset type.”
Adding staff, equipment and supporting these would be anticipated to have wide-reaching impacts for the county, he notes.