The Reeve and Council of the Rural Municipality of Moose Creek (RM) need to take action to be more democratic and to more appropriately spend the taxes paid by RM ratepayers.
The RM has, over the past few months, made the decision to pave a portion of Provincial Highway 361 from Highway #9 to the Rural Municipality of Browning at a cost estimated at $1.9 M. They made this decision without the necessary level of consultations with RM ratepayers. When this decision became apparent, a group of concerned ratepayers organized a petition for a binding vote on whether RM funds should be used for this type of project. We collected signatures from 113 ratepayers in just a few days ( from an RM population of about 365 men, women and children) and submitted the petition to the RM. At a meeting on January 12, 2011 the RM Administrator informed Council the petition met all the legal requirements to be accepted as a valid petition. However Council made the decision they would not hold a vote because they had a binding agreement with the Ministry of Highways and Infrastructure and the RM of Browning to undertake the paving project.
The RM Council has chosen to ignore the provisions of The Municipalities Act on petitions and referendums as well as putting forward an illegitimate reason for not holding a vote. The RM had signed a paving agreement in June, 2010. But this agreement is being renegotiated to extend the timeline for the paving project to 4 years and introducing a new four-year fixed contribution schedule from Highways and Infrastructure. It is our understanding that Highways and Infrastructure has not yet completed nor sent their draft of their proposed ammendments to the RMs for consideration and signing. And now that the agreement has been reopened every party has the ability to ask for changes. Now that this June 2010 agreement has been reopened, it is the perfect opportunity for the Reeve and Councillors to fully inform their ratepayers about the project, then call a referendum and make it clear that any participation is dependent on a binding decision reached by the referendum question.
We are prepared to accept the decision of ratepayers on whether it proceeds. The Reeve and Council of the RM want to proceed even though 113 ratepayers asked for a binding vote in a properly submitted petition.
We also see the decision to participate in this paving project as not the appropriate use of the tax dollars of RM ratepayers. The cost of $1.9 M represents over $5000 per individual in the RM. It is more than is spent on all transportation costs in the RM in a typical year. There are many more pressing financial needs in the RM than this particular paving project. Why not use the funds to make improvements to all of Provincial Highway 361 in the RM which is heavily used and needs work? Why not use the funds to improve other heavy haul routes in the RM which are certainly going to require upgrades due to the continuing development of the oil industry? Or why not use some of these funds to address dust issues on heavy use roads in the RM. Oil activity and gravel roads mean dust is a reality for many rural residents. The oil industry continues to grow and to pay significant amounts of tax to the RM. Why don't we use some of that $1.9 M to address dust issues for rural residents?
But this is not the only financial issue of concern facing the RM. The information about Borderline Housing is very concerning. We all recognize the growing need for seniors' housing. The expansion at Borderline is a concern because of project delays, apparent cost overruns, lawsuits, mold, insufficient project management and increasing financial liability for participating municipal ratepayers. Are ratepayers in the RM being kept fully informed of what is going on at Borderline and the financial implications for RM ratepayers? We think not.
What other financial decisions are being made that ratepayers are not aware of?
We call on the Reeve and Councillors of the RM to accept the democratic right of ratepayers to vote on the paving project. And we also call for more information on financial commitments being made by the RM. And we call for more openness and consultation on the important decisions being made now and in the future by the RM.
Yours Sincerely,
Signed by:
Harold Cushon, Oxbow
Foster Warriner, Alameda
John McNeil, Alameda
