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.