These meetings were organized through the Semans Face book page. These meetings were advertised as meetings for concerned ratepayers of Mount Hope 279. Between the two meetings approximately 50 people attended from all areas of the RM.
Many areas of concern were brought up. In no particular order they are:
--The original amalgamation of the RM of Mount Hope and the RM of Kutawa. It is felt that most of the major expenses and projects are east of Highway #6 (in the former RM of Kutawa). These projects are being funded by the larger tax base west of Highway #6. This is especially felt by the ratepayers of Divisions 4 and 6. A few years ago the ratepayers of Division 6 tried to separate from the RM of Mount Hope. The ratepayers of Division 4 and Division 6 might consider this option again.
--The RM of Mount Hope is one of the higher assessed RMs in the province.
--The number of employees in the RM has grown to 21. We have our own gravel trucks yet we contract out gravel hauling. Road construction equipment sits in the RM yard while the RM contracts to build a half mile of road. The RM grades perfectly fine dry dirt roads to keep employees busy.
--It was felt council was not being open and impartial in the initial attempt to pick a shop location.
--Concern about the deteriorating infrastructure was expressed with many feeling money would be better spent on improving roads than building a shop.
--Another major concern was the lack of an annual ratepayers meeting. The ratepayers have concerns and expect answers.
A consensus on the priority of these concerns was a difficult matter. A committee was formed to explore options and bring our concerns to the RM Council. Steve James, Kevin Gettis, Wayne Hicks, Doug Edwards and Ian Saul are the committee members.
On August 10th Kevin, Wayne and Ian attended a meeting with the RM Council. They were informed by Council that Council had decided to conduct a plebiscite on whether they should build a shop and if so where. We were naturally in favour of a plebiscite and asked if we could approve the wording of the question in the plebiscite. (Not sure we got a clear yes or no.)
Council also stated they would like to include with the plebiscite a letter highlighting some FACTS. We replied we didn’t think it was legal to include propaganda with a plebiscite. The committee may need to address this issue with them again. (We feel both sides should have an equal voice with the voter.)
The committee also asked for a ratepayers meeting before the plebiscite so voters could make an informed decision. This would also give ratepayers a chance to voice many of their other concerns. Council agreed to this but stated they would like to have the questions submitted in writing before the meeting so they could research the answers.
Through a bit of research, when only the municipal taxes are compared between the RM of Mount Hope and the RM of Wreford, the land owners in the RM of Mount Hope are paying $413.00 more on a quarter section with a taxable assessment of $125,000 (75% more than the land owners in the RM of Wreford pay). Are we getting any more value?
The roads are not better. The August 21st weekend rain made the Primary grid out of Nokomis impassable in Mount Hope, whereas the first two miles in Wreford were near perfect. The Nokomis grid is a major grain haul route and the only primary route for some. This impassable road made it difficult for producers to fulfill their grain delivery contacts on time.
The taxpayers in the RM of Mount Hope want their concerns addressed. The issue of poorly maintained roads needs to be resolved before a new shop is built. Land owners need well built and maintained roads to make their businesses successful. Repair the roads before building a new shop.
The Committee of Concerned Ratepayers, Submitted by Doug Edwards
- Idea’s and opinions expressed here are those of the author
- This letter is published as-is, unedited
