Photo by William Crooks
Residents question Bury council during monthly meeting
By William Crooks
Local Journalism Initiative
Marked by active participation and candid discussions, residents of Bury raised numerous questions and concerns during the public question periods of the council meeting held July 2. Held at the Armoury Community Centre, the meeting provided a platform for residents to address various issues directly with council members, emphasizing the community’s engagement and the council’s accountability.
Opening and adoption of minutes
Presided over by Mayor Denis Savage, the gathering began promptly at 7:30 p.m. with the council adopting the agenda for the day. Following this, the minutes from the extraordinary meetings held on May 21 and June 3 were approved. These minutes included corrections related to human rights compliance.
The first question period kicked off with a flurry of inquiries from residents, reflecting a range of concerns and interests.
Tent purchases and usage
One of the initial questions centered on the municipality’s acquisition and use of tents intended for market creation.
A resident asked, “What happened to the first tent you bought with the intention of creating a market space? And what about the mini-tents purchased later with the same intention?”
The council responded by detailing the current status and future plans for the tents. “We bought pop-up tents last year,” explained a council member. “We’ll use them for various events. For the public market now, we’re using a fixed tent. If we see less need for the pop-up tents, we might put them up for sale. We initially had twelve tents in total—two large ones and ten smaller ones.”
This response led to further clarification about the old tents. The council mentioned that they attempted to sell the older tents during a recent auction, but there were no bids. “We announced the sale at the auction last week, but there were no offers. We’ll re-announce it,” a council member stated.
Employment changes in the municipality
Another resident raised concerns about the changes in employment within the municipality, comparing the current number of workers to previous years.
“How come there were only four workers before, and now there are seven or eight? It’s the same municipality with less work to do. How can you justify more workers?” the resident inquired.
The council addressed this by explaining that the current employment levels are necessary due to the evolving needs and projects within the municipality. “We have more specific projects and higher standards now, justifying the current employment levels,” noted a council member. The council highlighted that while fewer workers managed more tasks in the past, the current workload and the need for specialization required a larger workforce.
Fire Department equipment
A resident questioned the necessity and cost of replacing firefighters’ helmets, asking about the expiration dates and the rationale behind the purchases.
“We replace helmets only when necessary and in compliance with safety regulations,” explained a council member. “The expiration is typically ten years, and this ensures the safety and reliability of our equipment. We don’t exchange them in advance; we do it when we are required to.”
This explanation led to further discussion about the general maintenance and replacement schedule for the fire department’s equipment, emphasizing the council’s commitment to ensuring the safety and effectiveness of emergency response services.
Public works and infrastructure
There were also inquiries about the municipality’s handling of public works and infrastructure maintenance. One resident asked why certain roads had not yet received the necessary calcium treatment to manage dust.
“We’ve applied calcium on the main street, but what about the dirt roads this summer? It’s already July 2,” the resident queried.
The council responded that the application schedule was influenced by various factors, including weather conditions and budget allocations. “We plan to treat the dirt roads, but there are prioritization and logistical issues. We aim to complete it within the summer,” a council member assured.
Reports and correspondence
The council then moved on to the formal reports and correspondence. Savage provided a brief report, mentioning a minor fire incident at Valoris, a local multi-material sorting centre, that was managed without significant damage, allowing operations to resume promptly. There were also updates from various committees, including human resources, public safety, public works, urban planning, and leisure, sport, and culture.
The second question period provided another opportunity for residents to engage with the council, focusing more on specific agenda items and operational details.
Salary equity and employment practices
A resident raised concerns about salary equity within the municipality, asking whether male and female employees were paid differently for similar positions.
“Are we paying different salaries for men and women in similar positions?” the resident asked.
The council assured that salary equity is maintained and governed by regulatory standards. “This is a governmental mandate. We employ independent firms to ensure compliance and conduct regular reviews,” a council member responded. The council explained that these reviews are conducted to maintain salary equity and that the municipality adheres strictly to legal requirements regarding compensation.
Winter sand screening rental
A significant portion of the discussion focused on the rental of a screening machine for winter sand. The council reviewed two offers for the rental but ultimately decided against proceeding with it.
“Why don’t we find a more cost-effective solution rather than renting a screen for $9,470?” a resident questioned.
The council acknowledged the need for a thorough evaluation, stating, “We will look into alternative solutions and ensure the most cost-effective approach.” The decision to not rent the screening machine was based on a cost-benefit analysis, with the council emphasizing the importance of fiscal responsibility.
Fire Department reports
There was also a question regarding the fire department’s reporting procedures, specifically whether the reports were sent to higher government bodies.
“Are the fire incident reports by our fire department ever sent to a government office higher than our municipality?” a resident asked.
The council confirmed that the fire department completes specific reports for each incident, known as DSI reports, which are then submitted to the Ministry of Public Security. “We have a specific form for the Ministry of Public Security that we fill out and send for every fire incident,” a council member explained.
Future projects and expenditures
Residents also inquired about future projects and how funds were being allocated, particularly concerning public infrastructure and recreational facilities.
“Why wasn’t the park ready for the July 1st celebrations? And why are we spending so much on unnecessary projects?” a resident demanded.
The council clarified that while there were delays in certain projects, efforts were being made to ensure timely completion and efficient use of resources. “We faced some logistical challenges, but we’re committed to completing these projects efficiently,” a council member responded.
As the meeting concluded, the council announced the next regular session scheduled for August 5. The council encouraged residents to attend and participate, reinforcing the importance of community involvement in municipal affairs.
“We value your participation and welcome you to join us in our next meeting,” Savage said, emphasizing the council’s commitment to open and responsive governance.