Response received from Michel Potvin followed by Mario Gauthier's response (mario.j.gauthier@gmail.com)
On Thu, Nov 14, 2024 at 11:48 AM MPotvin@alfred-plantagenet.com <MPotvin@alfred-plantagenet.com> wrote:
Merci M. Gauthier for your questions regarding Concession 7.
Firstly, allow me to reiterate that the “Plan quinquennal de gestion des biens routiers” that was presented on October 22, 2024, and adopted by Council on November 5, 2024, is a living document. Priorities may shift along the way for multiple reasons (i.e.- quicker deterioration of an asset than anticipated). Hence, roads currently included in the plan may fall off the priority list, especially in the later years, and other roads may move up the list for a variety of reasons.
The Township maintains nearly 300 km of roads, of which approximately 123 km are asphalt and 103 km are gravel roads, such as Concession 7. Most of our gravel roads, like Concession 7, are, as you state, muddy and unpleasant in times of heavy rain or thaw. There is no quick fix to the situation you describe. As indicated in the 5-year plan, the replacement cost of our road assets exceeds 72M$. To put matters in context, the Township invests approximately 1.8M$ (last 5-year average) towards road assets, which not only includes road rehabilitation and resurfacing, but also machinery, bridges and structural culverts, sidewalks and curbs, streetlights, storm drains and catch basins, buildings, and other accessories.
The 5-year plan identifies 15 roads to be rehabilitated/resurfaced over the next 5 years (which represents 41.2 km or about 14% of our road network) at a total cost of 7.03M$. Most roads identified are asphalt, but a few are gravel. It is also worth noting that the plan presumes an annual budget of 2.5M$, which is 700 000$ more annually than the previous 5-year average. If the Township is unable to sustain that level of investment, then, obviously, some assets will not be upgraded in the next 5 years and more tough choices will lie ahead.
From the administration’s viewpoint, these choices must be data-driven, and not subjective in nature, and certainly not driven by petitions or political pressure. That is why risk is the only factor that the administration considered when it recommended a series of assets to council. And the only objective was to maximize effective and efficient allocation of our limited resources. Further, risk was objectively assessed against 5 specific factors: condition, replacement cost, class of road, number of civic addresses and whether the road is identified as an Emergency Detour Route (EDR).
Concession 7 is a 3.0 km class 6 road, with all but 2 residences located within the first kilometre east of County Road 19. It makes no sense to pave or even rehab an extra 2.0 kms of roads for 2 residences (including yours) when the needs are so high throughout the Township. Further, Concession 7 was not initially included in the mix as it is a gravel road, and the cost of rehabilitation is significantly less than an asphalt road. Should the need arise, the Township could rehabilitate 1.0 km (gravel) at a cost that would have little impact on its overall capital budget. In other words, given that the replacement cost is substantially lower for a gravel road, Concession 7 could still be considered / added in the near future for rehabilitation.
Regarding your question as to whether the state of Concession 7 was considered in the drafting of the Asset Management Plan, the simple answer is yes. The AMP was largely based on the 2023 Road Needs Study produced by the engineering firm LRL, which considered the state of every road asset in the Township. Again, these tools are utilized to remove subjective decision making, or as you put it, sway.
While I appreciate your efforts and lobbying on behalf of your neighbours of Concession 7, my responsibility is to manage assets and budgets – not individual expectations. The administration has no intention of reopening discussion about the 5-year plan simply to add your Concession, but we will certainly entertain the possibility of shifting priorities based on risk and deterioration of assets as we review the plan on an annual basis.
I thank you for bringing your concerns to my attention.
Michel
-----------------------------------------------------------
From: Walker, Ian <IWalker@alfred-plantagenet.com>
Sent: November 12, 2024 8:16 AM
To: Mario Gauthier <mario.j.gauthier@gmail.com>; Potvin, Michel <MPotvin@alfred-plantagenet.com>
Cc: Laviolette, Yves <YLaviolette@alfred-plantagenet.com>; Viau, Antoni <AViau@alfred-plantagenet.com>; Lamarche, Benoit <BLamarche@alfred-plantagenet.com>; Cadieux, Jean-Pierre <JPCadieux@alfred-plantagenet.com>; Potvin, Michel <MPotvin@alfred-plantagenet.com>
Subject: Re: Concession 7 (between County Rd 19 and Route 16) omitted from 5 year road rehabilitation plan
Good morning Mr. Potvin
Can you respond t this email?
Regards
Reply from Mario Gauthier to above response received from Michel Potvin:
From: Mario Gauthier <mario.j.gauthier@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, Nov 14, 2024 at 5:33 PM
Subject: Re: Concession 7 (between County Rd 19 and Route 16) omitted from 5 year road rehabilitation plan
To: MPotvin@alfred-plantagenet.com <MPotvin@alfred-plantagenet.com>
Cc: Laviolette, Yves <YLaviolette@alfred-plantagenet.com>, Viau, Antoni <AViau@alfred-plantagenet.com>, Lamarche, Benoit <BLamarche@alfred-plantagenet.com>, Cadieux, Jean-Pierre <JPCadieux@alfred-plantagenet.com>, Walker, Ian <IWalker@alfred-plantagenet.com>
Hi Michel,
Thank you for responding to my email, it is satisfying to know the 5 year plan is a living document and will be updated based on factual needs and data.
You write that Concession 7 was considered in the drafting of the AMP. This is excellent.
We ask nothing less than to understand the data that was collected for the AMP/2023 Road Needs Study.
Where is the 2023 Road Needs Study on your website?
What are the actual findings for our stretch of Concession 7 (between County Rd 19 and Route 16) and, as a comparative, what were the findings for Route 16 and Concession 7 (Boudreau to County Rd 19)?
When you state:
That is why risk is the only factor that the administration considered when it recommended a series of assets to council.
Further, risk was objectively assessed against 5 specific factors: condition, replacement cost, class of road, number of civic addresses and whether the road is identified as an Emergency Detour Route (EDR).
Again, we simply seek the scoring and/or details of the 5 specific factors for our portion of Concession 7 versus the 5 specific factors for Concession 7 and Route 16 planned for rehabilitation next year?
If the risk factors are based on the grid as follow (see attachment):
We are quite confident in the 2 leading factors; our concession condition is effectively poor and based on a quick visualization, civic addresses are higher on our concession when comparing the same distances:
- Concession 7 (Between Boudreau and County Rd 19) = 13 over the first 1.1 kms while the remaining 1.5km has no residential properties at all.
- Concession 7 (between County Rd 19 and Route 16) = 15 over the first 1.2 kms . (One of those civic addresses is a multi housing property with 4 distinct residences and further development lots are being sold)
- Route 16 (between Concession 7 and County Rd 2) = 9 over 0.8 km
*See attached, the past civic address account that was submitted as part of our petition to raise awareness of the true quantities.
Also, as asked in my previous email, please, what are the addresses or locations of the assets below?
Appendix C -Level of Service Images in the Asset Management Plan 2024.
- Concession 7 Plantagenet Asset ID 5118 Condition 60
- Concession 7 Plantagenet Asset ID 5096 Condition 40
- Concession 7 Plantagenet Asset ID 5097 Condition 40
Adding gravel is a short term solution that must be repeated frequently. The quantity of cars, commercial vehicles, farm equipment and ATVs that tear up this concession is compromising your residents safety and well being and needs to be paved and large deep ditches need guardrails. If not, the quantity of housing will simply continue to grow and to increase and the road will simply deteriorate (as do our vehicles) and someone will be hurt.
While we appreciate your responsibility in managing assets and budgets, it is also your responsibility to be transparent and accountable to decisions and representations that are made. Our first expectation as a community is for the safety of everyone using our roadway and our additional expectations are for honesty and integrity of all involved in this exercise. The administration needs to disclose and explain the actual data used for producing the above noted reports and decisions. It is as simple as that. Then councillors and the mayor will be able to make a decision based on validated and trustworthy data.
You may not want to reopen the discussion on the 5 year plan but you must be accountable for the information contained within it and the decisions made based on it. If an error slipped in or modifications need to be done, we urge they be done before the 2025 Budget is tabled next month and the final list of roads rehabilitated is provided.
We, the residents of Concession 7 in Curran continue to press the municipality based on the factual conditions of our road. Safety is our number one concern. Residents support this request. Our continued community involvement is to ensure the municipality does not forget the true condition of our road and integrates all this relevant information in the criteria used to assess asset risk and criticality.
We are working together to remind you and bring to your attention the risks we face daily when the gravel and mud jeopardizes everyone’s safety. When our road deteriorates to a point that our own councillor does not want to drive on it, it is time the situation be addressed factually.
Regards,
Mario Gauthier