Here is a link to the Complete Ombudsman Report From August 2007 regarding the background and actions as the RM of Killarney-Turtle Mountain proposed to build a multiplex in Killarney.

Click Here for the PDF Report

From the Portage Daily Graphic

Local rate payer satisfied with the courts decision to delay the PCU multiplex

What follows is a letter from a local ratepayer who is satisfied with the courts decision to delay the PCU multiplex and is dissatisfied about how the council has handle itself in this case:

“I am a ratepayer in the RM of Portage and pleased with the outcome of the court case. This has been a project (the municipal share) which was on the verge of being pushed through with little or no regard for input, consultation or approval of ratepayers. This is not a rural versus city issue.

It is time to get passed the “closed door” attitude by council and make this an open book to provide transparency to ratepayers. I would say in the rural areas there is a 90 to 95 percent rejection of the project.

Why? Because of the way the RM Council has proceeded with blinders on to dismiss any input from ratepayers and a closed ear to any questions raised, which were mistakenly interpreted by the Reeve to be negative. All ratepayers, residents and non-resident ratepayers of the municipality were looking for was information on the total cost and to be included in the final decision by the way of a municipal wide vote. This is the only way to obtain true measure, whether pro or con, to see if the council should continue or not. Council is not an autocracy.

No one can go to the banks or other lending institutions to try and borrow money for a project that you have no idea of the size, or scope, or future costs to maintain, or ultimately have to replace. So why would one assume you can borrow $8 million dollars from the ratepayers of the RM of Portage. Gentlemen, ratepayers pay the tax bill, we are the bank

In conclusion, the day to day operations of the Municipality are guided by the council with a reasonable standard of competence and fairness. It is difficult to keep everyone happy and it is a thankless job at times. But in the case of the PCU project contribution dealing in millions of dollars and long term debt to the ratepayers, this has been bungled since day one. If you were going to do this at all, do it right and do it right the first time.

This is my opinion.

J.R. McGowan.”

To see the actually story and other local reactions, please check Monday’s edition of The Daily Graphic. If you have any comments you would like to submit for consideration, Please e-mail them to pjames@cpheraldleader.com

Editorial from the Portage Daily Graphic December 13 2008

Some are touting it as a victory for democracy, and the others … well, they’re not saying very much at all.

Court of Queen’s Bench Justice John Scurfield ruled on Dec. 9 the Rural Municipality of Portage la Prairie did not present an adequate plan to go ahead with borrowing its share of the PCU Centre’s funding, which amounts to $8 million. According to Scurfield, the RM’s plan was pure estimation rather than hard numbers, and that is just not good enough.

“The right to estimate does not include the right to guess or speculate,” wrote the judge in his decision.

What this victory means for the ratepayers of the RM is unclear at this time, as nobody from the RM or the City of Portage is commenting, but that is nothing new.

While the multiplex is a great idea and something that will do nothing but good for the community, the developments of the complex have been shrouded in secrecy from the beginning. Trying to get any information as to the developments has been difficult, to say the least. The city and RM councils have done a lot of hard work to make this dream a reality, and kudos to them, but the tight-lipped approach to a project that requires community support and a great amount of community dollars is questionable.

The secondary phase of naming rights proposal submissions wrapped up at the end of October, but the results have yet to be released, and there is no reason given for the delay when the councils have been asked. This is just another example of how information is less than forthcoming.

This court case shows the citizens are concerned with where and how their tax dollars are being spent. There are no hard and fast numbers given, plans have been changing and bylaws and tenders have been passed with lightning-quick speed before the public has had a chance to get involved.

The PCU Centre is supposed to be a community project, so why has the community not been allowed to get involved, except with their chequebooks?

Perhaps Scurfield’s ruling will give the councils pause, will make them take a step back and think about their methods. Is the multiplex a good idea? Yes, there is no question about that. Is this something the community wants? Absolutely. But the ratepayers have said the means do not justify the ends, and have proven it before a QB judge.

The generic terms, the estimations, the speculations — they all have to end. Concrete answers are needed. No more closed-door meetings. No more “no comment.” The councils are doing a good thing by building the multiplex, but more information is necessary. It is time to let the people get involved in something that is meant to be for them.

Yes, the councils were elected by the people, but that does not give them carte-blanche to do whatever they want. The voice of the people is strong, and, as the ratepayers have shown, cannot be silenced.

From the Portage Daily Graphic

Rob Swystun, Central Plains Herald-Leader
A group of municipal ratepayers has recorded a victory in the civil court case they brought against the Rural Municipality of Portage la Prairie.

Court of Queen’s Bench Justice John Scurfield said the Rural Municipality of Portage did not present an adequate plan to go ahead with borrowing its share of the Portage Credit Union Centre’s funding — $8 million — when it passed its local improvement plan and borrowing bylaw for the facility.

The RM’s plan contained information that was more akin to speculation than hard numbers, the decision said, which does not hold up to specific obligations set out in the Manitoba Municipalities Act to protect taxpayers from unwise municipal spending.

“The RM did not act in bad faith,” Scurfield wrote in his decision, handed down Dec. 9. “It simply acted prematurely. The right to estimate does not include the right to guess or speculate. An estimate must have its roots in a reasonably developed plan. There was no urgent reason to proceed with the local improvement plan prior to developing the proposal to a stage where it could provide a reasonable level of reliable information to its taxpayers.”

According to the decision, as reported first on thedailygraphic.com, the RM’s borrowing bylaw was given second and third readings by the RM council on Oct. 9, 2007, but it was not until May 15, 2008, that the design details of the multiplex and its estimated cost were revealed. That cost estimate was $41 million, as opposed to the original $32-million estimate. The scope of the facility was then scaled back to a more manageable $35.7 million by taking out some components like a second sheet of ice.

The judge’s decision had municipal officials remaining mum Wednesday on the subject for the moment until meetings and consultations could be set up to discuss what implications the decision will have on the now-estimated $35.7-million project, currently under construction at the Island Park fairgrounds.

“We haven’t had a chance to talk to our lawyer, and at this time we have no comment,” RM of Portage Reeve Toby Trimble said Wednesday afternoon.

Earlier in the day, Trimble said the RM’s decision on whether to appeal would also wait until officials had a chance to meet with their lawyer.

Officials with the City of Portage also played it safe.

Deputy mayor Dave Quinn said the court decision would be on the next city council meeting agenda to discuss. In the meantime, he aimed to meet with city manager Dale Lyle and other officials to see what implications it may have.

Kameron Blight, a member of the group of ratepayers, which also includes Blight Native Seeds Ltd., Leslie Farms Ltd., Verwey Farms Ltd., Wesley Packham, Schirp Farms, Orval Troop, Kevin Mason, Abe Peters, Kevin Yuill and a numbered company, said their lawyer, Mona Brown, would comment on their behalf.

“The RM has no authority whatsoever to proceed with anything,” Brown, a lawyer with Smith Neufeld Jodoin LLP’s Carman office, stated.

As for the multiplex’s project manager, Guenter Schaub of Tower Engineering said he did not know how the decision might affect the project and did not even know of Scurfield’s decision until The Daily Graphic called him to inquire about it.

The Herald-Leader and thedailygraphic.com will have more on this story as it develops.

From The Portage Daily Graphic

The Rural Municipality of Portage la Prairie has lost a civil court case brought forward by municipal ratepayers.

Court of Queen’s Bench justice John Scurfield said the Rural Municipality of Portage la Prairie did not present an adequate plan to go ahead with borrowing its share of the Portage Credit Union Centre’s funding — $8 million — when it passed its local improvement plan and borrowing bylaw for the facility.

The RM’s plan contained information that was more akin to speculation than hard numbers, the decision said, which does not hold up to specific obligations set out in the province’s Municipalities Act to protect taxpayers from unwise municipal spending.

Those obligations include knowing how much money will be needed for a project, how that money will be raised and how any proposed tax-based fundraising will be calculated and imposed on taxpayers, as well as designs and locations for projects.

“The RM did not act in bad faith,” Scurfield said in his decision, handed down Dec. 9. “It simply acted prematurely. The right to estimate does not include the right to guess or speculate. An estimate must have its roots in a reasonably developed plan. There was no urgent reason to proceed with the local improvement plan prior to developing the proposal to a stage where it could provide a reasonable level of reliable information to its taxpayers.”

According to the decision, as reported first on thedailygraphic.com, the RM’s borrowing by-law was given second and third readings by the RM’s council on Oct. 9, 2007, but it was not until May 15, 2008, that the design details of the multiplex and its estimated cost were revealed. That cost was $41 million, as opposed to the original $32 million estimate.

Also, by the time the RM had finalized its improvement plan and borrowing bylaw, the judge pointed out, the design of the multiplex had changed significantly from its original design, which the plan was based on, causing ratepayers in the RM to question its validity. The design was altered to cut down on the estimated cost of the building.

The RM, however “steadfastly refused to redo the process” since the final design had been decided on, the judge said.

And although the RM had held pre-advertised public hearings about the project on Aug. 14, 2007, the advertisements for the public hearings lacked detail about the project and the cost to individual taxpayers.

The ruling has just been announced that the Concerned Taxpayers were victorious in their court case against the RM of Portage la Prairie.

Here is a link to the ruling

It is a huge TIF image file so it is best read with Windows Picture and Fax Viewer and scroll through the pages

The last paragraph is worth the read.

(68) For these reasons I find that the RM did not comply with mandatory obligations set out by section 315 of the Act. Those breaches result in a loss of jurisdiction. I, therefore, quash the approval of the local improvement plan and the related borrowing by-law. The applicants are entitled to the costs of this application.

Signed
Justice Scurfield