The City of Meadow Lake could possibly kick $150,000 in sidewalk repairs to the curb. While nothing has been made official as of yet, during its regular meeting held Tuesday (April 7), city council voted to defer any decision on awarding a sole source contract for the 2026 phase of the city’s sidewalk rehabilitation project. The original motion called for council to award the contract to Safesidewalks Canada Inc., but things were put on hold in an effort to address what some council members feel is a bigger priority.
“What if we were to defer this for a year?” asked councillor Conrad Read. “Would there be any downfall? I just look at other expenses we have. If it was me, I would want to look at possibly deferring this and putting the money toward replacing a roof instead of losing a million dollar building.” The building Read was referring to is the Meadow Lake Aquatic Centre. “We have a problem at our swimming pool with the roof,” Read continued. “Would we rather use this money toward repairing that roof? That is my question. Yes, this money ($150,000) was budgeted for as an operating cost, but all of a sudden we have a leaky roof which, to me, is a priority. And, where do you come up with $445,000 to take care of something like that?” According to Hasan Akhtar, the city’s director of public works, the sidewalk project could potentially be deferred but he doesn’t know what, if any, additional costs would be factored in if the work is put off until the following year.
“In August 2025, the city contracted Safesidewalks Canada Inc. (SSC) to conduct a comprehensive sidewalk condition assessment of all rigid concrete sidewalks within the city’s right-of-ways,” Akhtar noted in his official recommendation to council. “ A priority rating value scale was established to categorize the various levels of required maintenance… The assessment identified 579 total defects across an estimated 1,301 sidewalk panels including 60 panels requiring removal and replacement, 427 repairable defects and 92 supplementary items such as missing wheelchair ramps and vegetation hazards. Later that same season, SSC completed an initial 224 repair saw-cutting program under a $51,700.00 contract, delivering documented savings of $206,800 over conventional demolition and replacement costs. The work was carried out on schedule and within budget, with before and after photographic documentation for each individual repair location.”
Remaining work still in need of attention includes 217 repairable defects affecting an estimated 744 panels, 60 replacement grade defects affecting 236 panels and 92 supplementary items. It was the city’s plan to repair all priorities one and two defects and replace the highest priority panels at a cost of $134,143. As part of its 2026 budget, the city had already set aside $150,000 for the project. “This is something council has to make a decision on, and, when you look at funding something extraordinary like this (aquatic centre roof) when it comes up, we need to look at where can we cut back to pay for something like that unless, of course, our treasurer has a magic wand,” Read stated. “I just want to look at our finances and make sure we are making an informed decision when we approve this or disapprove it.”
Councillor Marty Bishop echoed much of what Read had to say. “If we defer the sidewalk project, is it going to degrade to the point where things are unfit and will it end up costing us a lot more money?” Bishop wondered. “Are we going to be out a lot of money if we don’t fix things this year?” Akhtar reiterated he does not know how much of a cost increase there would be, adding it would likely depend on how many sidewalk slabs degrade to the point where they are beyond repair. The motion to award Safesidewalks Canada Inc. the contract was ultimately denied with Read bringing forth another motion to defer any decision on the project until council’s next meeting. The motion was seconded by Bishop. “How are we going to pay for the swimming pool roof?” Read remarked. “That’s the information I would want before making any decisions.” The motion to defer was approved, with the matter scheduled to come back to the table at council’s April 27 meeting.
