The Council for the RM of Dufferin No. 190 met for its regular monthly meeting at 10 am in Chambers at the Municipal office in Bethune on November 18. Council sat around the chamber's table. While not socially distanced, all were wearing masks. As a result of COVID-19, Council limited the in-chambers attendees to delegations and members of the press. Members of the public who wanted to observe the meeting were able to do so via Zoom.
First Meeting of Council
Dufferin Reeve Russ Kirzinger (right) and Councillor Ashton Riche (left)
This meeting was the first for the new Council. New around the Council table was Reeve - Russ Kirzinger and Division 5 Councillor- Ashton Riche. Division 4 is vacant after the resignation of Councillor Brent Smith. Nominations for Division 4 are open until December 16, with the election to be held in January.
Meetings before the Meeting to End
Again, Council met privately in chambers before the official start of the meeting. Since September, Council has been meeting behind closed doors before the official beginning of the meeting. During these meetings, the Council has discussed the business of the RM.
When asked what the legislation says regarding holding meetings and discussing RM business before scheduled, a spokesperson for Ministry of Government Relations responded, saying Council and council committee meetings are required to be duly called and held in public.
Council may close all or part of their meetings to the public if the matter to be discussed concerns long-range or strategic planning or is a matter within the exemptions of Part III of The Local Authority Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.
They added that the RM's council procedures bylaw would outline the rules and procedures respecting the closing of all or part of a meeting.
The Council Member's Handbook for Municipalities says, "Councils are required to conduct their business in meetings that are open to the public, ensuring that the public can hear the debate and know what has been decided."
The Council Procedures bylaw on the RM of Dufferin website provides direction for closed meetings. It says that; a resolution by Council to move into a closed session should state the general topic for discussion. The Administrator will record in the minutes the time the in-camera portion of the meeting started and concluded. They will also record the names of the parties present and the legislative authority that was used to close the meeting. During the closed meeting, no other business may be discussed other than for the reason the meeting is closed. The matters discussed are to be kept confidential until discussed at a public meeting. Council cannot make resolutions or bylaws in closed meetings.
The Reeve, Russ Kirzinger, said to LMT that they are aware that they shouldn't have been meeting in this capacity, and in the future, the meetings will be conducted according to legislation.
Confusion around the Sale of Municipal Reserve Land
There appears to be confusion among the Council around the wording, intent and processes around the execution of a motion approving the request to purchase municipal reserve land at Highwood Beach by a resident.
When the review of October's minutes came up, Councillor Fishley asked the CAO to correct her October 14 motion regarding the sale of municipal reserve land (MR) to Derek Fuchs. The sale of this piece of MR land had been a source of contention among Highwood Beach residents.
When the matter came up again under business arising from the minutes, the CAO explained as the original motion had passed, the next part of the process is an extension. He put forward for Council's consideration 1) A motion to execute the sale agreement 2) A motion for consideration of the subdivision 3) To authorize the Administrator to draft the dedicated land sale bylaw for the next meeting. The CAO explained to LMT that then at the January meeting, the dedicated bylaw would be formally passed and then sent to community planning for registration.
The Reeve asked the CAO twice if the land had been sold. The CAO said no that it was part of the process.
After the CAO said this, Councillor Zinn spoke up, saying, "yes, can we sell it. I say sell it...again."
Councillors Fishley and Weisbrod asked for confirmation that there will be public notice processes and public meetings. Which the answer was yes, which will occur at the December meeting.
Councillor Weisbrod made the motion, and the motion passed unanimously.
Delegations
Wayne Bell, a resident of Highwood Beach, presented as a delegation to Council. He addressed the Council as well as having included the documentation in an email before his delegation. He provided video evidence that accompanied his presentation.
Bell said that after RM meetings on December 03, 2009, and January 11, 2010, which addressed zoning changes from agriculture to lakeshore development on different land parcels at Highwood Beach; the RM issued a letter on January 12, 2010, which addressed drainage and how they would rectify it. Bell went on to say the letter stated Council was in the process of signing a servicing agreement with the developer. The developer would have to provide, at his expense, a plan by an engineer that would account for the drainage. A municipal engineer from AECOM Engineering would then approve the plan. The letter further said the plan was for AECOM to supervise the construction to ensure it was built per the submitted plan. And if there was an opportunity to improve the existing drainage structure, the Council was prepared to make some improvements.
Bell asked Council if this agreement existed, and the CAO said that it did. Bell then asked if the agreement exists, why is development progressing without drainage first being addressed? Bell continued to say that water is draining downhill from the land, endangering his property. Bell noted he constructed and paid for a drainage system to help alleviate the problem. However, he said, someone had compromised his system by tying into it. He then asked; what bylaws exist, allowing the developer to do this unregulated?
Bell then referenced bylaws and gave detailed information supporting his position. Former Division 4 Councillor Brent Smith owns the property where the development is occurring. Bell played for Council two videos of the runoff during a rain. Council asked a few questions before Bell finished his presentation by reading a post that Brent Smith had posted on social media saying he was completing a solar development on his land and had surveyed the land.
Reeve Kirzinger addressed Bell. He acknowledged 1) Bell's concern regarding the drainage and how it affects his property 2) the unauthorized connection of the RM manhole into Bell's drain 3) the complications with rugged terrain and natural springs on the hillside 4) Bell's concerns of the altered terrain and addition of the road. Noting that natural terrain will absorb more water, which helps stabilize the hillside. 5) when natural terrain is altered, there are concerns. The Reeve added that he and perhaps other councillors need to get up to speed on the issue, and the presentation concluded.
When the matter came up for discussion again under new business, the CAO told Council that he has provided a history for their review and included aerial photographs supplied by Brent Smith. The CAO explained the pictures to the Council, saying that the entire area was already flat. Council discussed the drainage and what may be happening, and possibly why. The Reeve noted there are engineers who they would need to consult so that Council could make the best-informed decision. Council acknowledged Bell's email and presentation.
Dorry Street Road Closure
The CAO spoke to Council as to potential options to hold a public meeting at Highwood Beach while staying within the COVID-19 regulations.
The CAO then read the motion from October 14 regarding the contentious Dorry Street Road Closure at Highwood Beach. The motion was that; the proposed right of way be completed in two parcels. One proposed to be sold and annexed to lot 26 Block 5, and the second parcel be sold and annexed to parcel B with the remaining parcel of 6 metres remaining to be used as public access to the old boat launch area. Further to that, the CAO is to advise the proponents of the area of a time to discuss the matter in a public meeting in the near future.
The CAO asked if that motion was still the intent of Council. Councillor Weisbrod made a motion to rescind the motion. Council voted to rescind, which passed without discussion.
A diagram showing Dorry Street and the affected land was put up on the screen for Council to view.
Councillor Weisbrod made a motion where the RM would give the pieces of land discussed to the two adjacent cottages. The only question to be decided would be whether the land where the boathouses were would be included or not in the parcel given to parcel B. Council carried the motion and decided they would send a letter to the involved people, asking for their feedback.
Dorry Street Petition
In September, a petition was submitted by Highwood Beach residents noting numerous complaints around the proposed Dorry Street Road closure.
The CAO asked Council if they wished to respond to the petition or leave it until the Highwood Beach Public Meeting. A previous motion acknowledged the Administrators consideration and decision on the petition. Although the petition had been deemed invalid, the Administrator would respond to items in the petition. A response letter was drafted and sent for the Council's review, but the Council had decided to hold off.
The Reeve and Councillor Riche both said that they did not understand why the petition was not valid. The CAO explained there were not enough of the proper signatures on the petition. The CAO said that if they weren't listed on the title and he had no proof of them being an assessable owner, they would not be valid.
The Reeve and Councillor Riche agreed that they would like time to understand the issue so they could make an informed decision on the matter. Councillor Weisbrod made the motion to table the matter to the December meeting to allow for this.
A spokesperson from the Ministry of Government Relations responded to the LMT's question as to what the legislation says about rejecting and accepting petitions and the rejection of signatures whose names are not on land titles;
- Only certain petitions are binding and can compel Council to take action. Matters for which voters can petition are restructuring, a public meeting of the voters, a referendum, a financial audit, or a management audit.
- Each type of binding petition has a different set of legislative requirements that must be met in order to compel Council to further action. In these situations, the act speaks to voters as defined by The Local Government Election Act, 2015 and does not distinguish as to whether or not the petitioner is a landowner or assessed with taxable property.
- The sufficiency of these petitions is determined by the Administrator, as set out in legislation.
Bridge Repair Application
The program denied the RM's application to the Rural Integrated Roads for Growth (RIRG) Program. The RIRG program is administered through SARM and assists RM's with costs of building, and upgrading municipal roads, bridges and culverts to support growth.
The CAO informed Council that the road received a score of 20 out of 100. The CAO said the score was due to the low level per day average traffic because it is a class 6 road with a low economic value to the transportation routing. He said that the Council would have to consider either a whole bridge replacement or close the road if the bridge gets to the point of severe dilapidation. The CAO said the foreman would be contacting a few firms to get quotes on repair work instead of replacement. He noted that a previous estimate was approximately $125,000 to repair the bridge.
Gun Range Inquiry
The office received a phone call looking for information on establishing a new gun range in the municipality. The CAO said the call was for information purposes only, and they had received no formal request. The CAO informed Council that current zoning bylaws do not permit this type of development. He noted, there would be provincial regulations and required permits. As such, the RM does not have the authority under the current zoning bylaw to allow consideration for a gun range. The CAO said that the Council might have to consider this if a formal request comes forward.
Squatting? Not in Saskatchewan
The CAO said that SARM legal council had advised the RM to stop any legal proceeding regarding an individual taking residence on a piece of land in the RM. The landowner was notified that the sale agreement he had with the resident had lapsed and has been ordered to vacate the property. The CAO noted the property has again been relisted for sale. SARM legal council was asked as to the legal rights of the owner in regards to squatting. They said that there are no such rights in the province of Saskatchewan and that no law exists providing this right. The CAO said the landowner would be responsible for removing the tenant under other legislation. The CAO said this matter is closed.
Council meetings are open to the public for observation. The next meeting is on Wednesday, December 09, at 8 am. Due to changing regulations due to COVID-19, observers should contact the office for the most up to date way to observe the meeting.
- Jennifer Argue, LMT - Local Journalism Initiative reporter