Reeve Schmidt spoke of a matter regarding the issue of a simple misunderstanding by the CAO in dealing with a development matter. If this was a simple misunderstanding as suggested by Reeve Schmidt, a ratepayer would not have had to defend their position and the RM would not have been so resistant to accepting the provincial legislation they are required to uphold. The article by Ms Argue and Mr. Arndt’s letter to the editor were not responsible for making a mountain out of a molehill, as Reeve Schmidt implied, the RM did that all on their own. We, the ratepayer, had to seek clarification regarding the UBAS Act, as we were in disagreement with the RM’s interpretation of this Act. As a result we were informed by the Chief Building Official, Government of Saskatchewan that our farm home addition was in fact exempt from requiring a building permit. I forwarded this information to the RM and received a reply June 14 that the information would be filed and there was no further need for discussion. June 18, I submitted a letter to Council with concerns about the development page on the website as it states, “It is required by law that the RM of McKillop administer and enforce the Provincial Government’s Uniform Building and Accessibility Standards Act. This Act states that; the owner of each building in Saskatchewan shall ensure that the building is designed, constructed, placed, altered, repaired, renovated, demolished, relocated, removed, used, or occupied in accordance with building standards.” I felt this information was misleading and almost cost unnecessary expense and delay in acquiring engineered drawings, surveyor’s real property report etc, when all of these requirements were not necessary for farm buildings including a farm residence. The RM building bylaw and government legislation was initially not going to be properly applied in our situation, until we sought clarification, which confirmed what we had known. I believed this was cause for concern and submitted a letter to council. After I had submitted this letter to Council June 18, at the June 22 regular meeting, there was a complete turn around on the RM’s previous position of the June 14 email. I witnessed administration recommend that a building permit be required and enforced with the agreement and approval of council, a resolution was made by Councillor Dixon and it was carried.
Reeve Schmidt goes on to say the matter was resolved after a meeting with the CAO, Chief Building Official and the applicant, this is incorrect. We, the applicant, were not involved in this meeting.
Ratepayers have been able to conveniently watch RM meetings from their homes this last year and council cannot wait to get back to the office council chambers, to eliminate this convenience. Zoom has worked very well, from the ratepayers perspective. Reeve Schmidt has commented in the past that live streaming is something that could be looked at when council returns to council chambers. This would be a fantastic way to keep ratepayers informed and provide the public with the accountability and transparency they deserve. Councils efforts would be better served by directing their attention to providing live-streaming rather than lashing out at ratepayers or the local paper when they feel threatened by the truth. It appears council wants to control the narrative of what is going on in the RM and only want the public to believe what council is telling them. This is going to continue to be a problem until council takes their roles, responsibilities and code of ethics seriously and be accountable and provide ratepayers with live-streaming. This irresponsible, unprofessional, threatening attitude of council is a concern. Is Council working for or against the ratepayers?
RM McKillop Ratepayer, Leandra Cameron
- Idea’s and opinions expressed here are those of the author
