SUNDRE — Council has decided to proceed with completing a pathway lighting project with protective metal housings in the hopes of mitigating the potential for deliberately-caused damage in the future.
The move directing the municipality’s administration to get the project wrapped up before a grant funding deadline next spring came on Oct. 12 by way of a motion that was supported unanimously by members of council present for a special meeting called specifically to discuss the issue.
Mayor Richard Warnock was joined in council chambers by colleagues Connie Anderson, Paul Isaac, and Chris Vardas with Jaime Marr joining remotely by phone. Councillors Todd Dalke and Owen Petersen were not present.
Linda Nelson, chief administrative officer, provided council with a brief recap of the situation to date and said the Lions Park and Prairie Creek pathway lighting project was completed this past June but that shortly afterwards, most of the lights were significantly damaged or outright destroyed by vandals.
“Unfortunately, they were not insured,” said Chris Albert, director of corporate services. “There is a gap in the insurance policy, which we are also working on rectifying.”
Albert proceeded to break down three options recommended to council by administration, which sought direction.
“Regardless of the option that we choose, there is additional funding that will be required,” he said, later adding all three options would require funding from a restricted surplus account that has a remaining balance of about $154,000.
The project was previously approved by council on the basis the expense would be covered by grant funding, with the objective of not only beautifying the community but also lighting up a well-travelled pedestrian path that gets dark at night and by extension improving safety.
The municipality had successfully applied for grant funding through the Canada Community-Building Fund – formerly the Gas Tax Fund – as well as the Community Revitalization Fund, said Albert.
“However, grant funding – especially with these two particular grants as they are federal – is very strict,” he said, adding only minimal changes are allowed.
“They absolutely do not allow scope changes,” he said. “Scope changes can result in a complete loss of funding.”
Grant funding extension approved
Following discussions with the federal departments responsible for reviewing grant applications, Sundre’s administration was able to receive an extension to complete the project without losing any funding provided the project is completed by March 31, 2023, he said.
“We cannot get a further extension beyond that,” he said, adding that’s the end of the grant’s timeline.
Despite the tight timeframe with winter looming around the corner as one aspect of the job requires getting in the ground before freeze-up, Albert said, “we should be able to still meet that March 31 deadline.”
Outlining the three options, he said the first is simply to pull the plug and cancel the project entirely.
“If we were to cancel the project right now, we have paid to date approximately $63,000 out of our pocket,” he said. “The way that the grant works is, we don’t get the grant money until the project is complete and we’ve submitted all the receipts.”
And as there remains owing an additional $12,000, the municipality would be out more than $75,600 and have nothing to show for it should council opt to cancel the project, he added.
The second option involves completing the project as initially intended by replacing all of the damaged and destroyed lights. Out of 20, 11 would need to be replaced while a few others can be repaired, he said, adding there would also still be a matter of finishing the installation along Prairie Creek.
As a result of reinstalling and replacing the broken lights, the project’s cost would increase to $102,000.
“However, if that is the case, we would get our full funding,” said Albert, adding that represents about $85,000 and that the municipality would be footing the bill for the final roughly $17,000.
Protective metal casings, for a cost
The second option also included an additional cost estimate to protect all 27 lights.
“Clear Rush came up with a solution for us,” he said, pointing to an example enclosure for the lights brought to council chambers for illustrative purposes.
“Those will go around the light and basically be bolted to the foundation, hopefully mitigating some of the damage of vandalism that we saw this summer.”
The extra cost for the steel cages, valued at about $850 each, for all the lights would add another roughly $23,000, he said, adding that completing the project with the protective housings would therefore overall increase the town’s cost by $40,000.
“That’s on top of the grant funding,” he said.
The third and last option involved abandoning the installation of lights along the Prairie Creek pathway and remaining focused exclusively on finishing up the work in Lions Park, he said, adding a “significant portion” of the grant funding would be lost as a result of the scope change.
“We estimate what we would get is a little over $52,000,” he said. “But there is no guarantee of that.”
The option to focus only on Lions Park with the cages would cost the town about $50,000, he said, adding as a point for council to consider that while the metal casings offer protection, they also reduce the amount of light emitted by about 25 per cent.
Additionally, Albert said that despite all efforts to safeguard the lights in the future, there cannot be any assurances that they won’t meet the same unfortunate fate as the last ones.
“We think these are pretty secure, but there is no guarantee that they will not be vandalized again,” he said.
Let there be light
Following the presentation, Vardas adamantly opposed any suggestion to cancel the project.
“Option 1 for me is gone,” said Vardas, adding he “wouldn’t even consider” it.
Speaking in favour of the second option to complete the project in its full scope as originally approved with the addition of the cages, he said, “I’d prefer we do this, bolt it down to the ground, protect it as much as we can. That’s a pretty significant investment. We’ve already started doing the project; for us to pull out of it now [would be] a waste of money and time.”
Marr agreed cancelling the project isn’t an option because of the time, effort and funds invested to date, and expressed concern about losing grant funding if the project’s scope were changed as per the third option.
“We’ve already started. This is a lot of money that we’re spending now, and it’s just so frustrating that we have members in our community that are vandalizing these,” said Marr, who also supported the second option.
Responding to a question from the mayor regarding whether the third option potentially ran the risk of the town losing not just a portion but even all of the grant funding, Albert said, “If we went with Option 3 and the grant funding fell through then yes, we would be on the hook” for the project's full cost.
Insurance coverage expanded
Warnock also sought clarification regarding the status of insurance on such items.
The consideration of insurance does not necessarily pertain specifically to the pathway lights at Lions Park, said Albert, adding the incident led administration to discover a “gap in our insurance” coverage.
Further elaborating, Albert said things have changed over the years and that the municipality’s policy had along the way not been updated. The revised policy will also cover other items such as the town’s way-finding signage.
“You have to put a special rider on your insurance policy to cover things like the signage and the lights […] and the rider hasn’t been there for years because we didn’t have a lot of this stuff. But now as we’re getting more of it, it makes sense to put the rider on,” he said.
“Regardless of what option we choose, we’re fixing our insurance,” he added with a chuckle.
Following council’s discussion, Vardas’s motion directing administration to proceed with the second option to complete the project as per the original scope including the additional cost of protective cages to be covered by restricted surplus, carried unanimously.
