Council motion ammended ....

[parsley]

"And everyone has a personal invitation to attend
any council meeting."

That dictum must absolutely NOT not apply to a
ratepayer of the RM.

Not.at.all.

Pars

[parsley]

I read that as my having to recieve a personal
invitation from somebody at RM council, for me to
be allowed attend a council meeting. Pars

[grrrr]

oneoff-First of all, an R.M. is 324 square miles. Second, SAMA assessment increases will or should be offset by the R.M. applying a mill rate factor so that taxes over the whole R.M. stay roughly the same as they were. Of coarse taxes will rise as expenses rise, but the thing to rmember is that a 50% increase in assessment does not mean a 50% increase in taxes.

[oneoff]

Pars: The invitation came from a direct quote of one of the councillors last night. As both the councillor and I know; it is a hollow invitation. No extra persons have accepted this invitation since at least last Sept; and I would be extremely suprised if any new persons will ever grace the gallery with their attendance. In fact how would any one know they are so welcome at the council meetings?
That is where some sort of live (or near live) reporting would be a wonderful experiment. Thats what I did last night.

An even more interesting experiment would be for any rural municipal council to be open enough to broabcast the open sessions themselves; in some form of live broadcast. But it is a simple matter of weak councillors and reeves who are afraid of being caught picking buggers out of their nose; scatching their hairy bellies ( or worse) or getting caught with some totally inappropriate or outrageous comment. And I could repeat many of those poor taste comments from any recent meeting. Why doesn't someone else ask council why drug sniffing police dogs aren't allowed to enter into school buildings. I'd be damned suprised if you get the same answer that seemed to get a whole lot of support at last nights meeting. I don't dare say any more; and there was a lot more said in the council reports that in my opinion was more than the libel and slander that is so quickly directed at persons such as myself.
And yes the nose picking comment; the scratching phobia and the attempted jokes are all direct concerns of sitting council members from the area.

[oneoff]

grr: I posted my erroneous area calculation hours before you mentioned the error. However; it isn't true to say that a Sask RM has 324 square miles or any other figure we may each post. True most may be a nominal 324 sq. miles; but that may and does significantly differ between the RM's.
Councillors typically represent a division; which typically is 1 and 1/2 townships.
As you say; mill rates can be changed to raise the same amount of tax dollars; even though assessment may change drastically. However; councils point; or more coorectly some councillors opinions seemed to be clearly that they had no problem with even doubling the tax collected; providing the monies were spent on what they personally felt were wise projects. That kind of proposal needs to be checked out with the common ratepayer; before ever being enacted. The couuncillors reasoning was that municipal school taxes have been cut by the provincial gov't so we can afford to pay more municipal taxes.
And a little 6% hike will be of interest to a lot of people. Soon there will be no discounts allowed in Sask for early payment of school taxes collected by the RM's. We get to thank the provincial government for that one I guess. And how many readers knew that little tidbit.

And there wasn't any discussion about checking to see if there was any ratepayer support for the personal suggestion.
The fact is that assessments in 2013 are going to go up like they never have before (excluding possibly past experiments in changing from productive assessment calculations to the attempt at " a dollar of investment in land is assessed the same as a dollar of worth in residential property, industrial, commercial or cottage property etc.)

And don't forget the mockery of the tool chest containing "tax tools". That allows such things as "variable mill rate factors" that are applied to different classes of assessment so that an RM may totally exempt farm land from taxation; or decide to collect 88% of an RM's revenue from commmercial and basically the oil industry.
But the most interesting new twist in my view is how doubling residential assement while "only " increasing arable farm land about 50% will impact farm residence that currently don't often attract taxation because of the offsetting exemption of farm land taxes applied to the principle farm residence in Sask.
It's now going to take a lot mre quarters to not pay some tax on the farm residence.

[oneoff]

And for those wishing some further debating issues; how do you perceive a proposal for subdividing up to 4 parcels for "residences" out of every qurter section. This has apparently been suggested as a possible bylaw for any Rural Municipality in Sask; and has been discussed with some branch of Municipal Affairs which deals with approving bylaws. It has the strong potential to come to your RM next.

It certainly comes as a complete suprise to ordinary ratepayers in this RM. No ratepayers meetings, or publication of any hint of such a bylaw being contemplated.

I see at least one pretty serious imperfection that is headed straight for trouble.
Apparently the bylaw is focused on no more than parcelling out a quarter section into four or less 2.5 to 40 acre surveyed parcels. The problem, as I see it, is that when the Sask Land Titles system was converted to ISC (Information Services Corp); any railway or provincial highway automatically created two or more land titles if they crossed a quarter section. Any of those parcels may be owned by different title holders. And those title holders obviously don't have 160 acres; because although on the same old "quarter section"; there are now multiple actual land titles.
Now is the first one to request surveying out four parcels to have the right to claim the maximum of four parcels to the exclusion of the other title owners who may even have a larger share of the quarter section.

In my opinion this bylaw is fatally flawed by being based on quarter sections; when parcels as registered with ISC have been the current recognized lawful right to property.
Just another reason to brainstorm before drafting a bylaw meant to be enacted. But that is not how ratepayers business is conducted; is it or not?

[oneoff]

And for those wishing some further debating issues; how do you perceive a proposal for subdividing up to 4 parcels for "residences" out of every qurter section. This has apparently been suggested as a possible bylaw for any Rural Municipality in Sask; and has been discussed with some branch of Municipal Affairs which deals with approving bylaws. It has the strong potential to come to your RM next.

It certainly comes as a complete suprise to ordinary ratepayers in this RM. No ratepayers meetings, or publication of any hint of such a bylaw being contemplated.

I see at least one pretty serious imperfection that is headed straight for trouble.
Apparently the bylaw is focused on no more than parcelling out a quarter section into four or less 2.5 to 40 acre surveyed parcels. The problem, as I see it, is that when the Sask Land Titles system was converted to ISC (Information Services Corp); any railway or provincial highway automatically created two or more land titles if they crossed a quarter section. Any of those parcels may be owned by different title holders. And those title holders obviously don't have 160 acres; because although on the same old "quarter section"; there are now multiple actual land titles.
Now is the first one to request surveying out four parcels to have the right to claim the maximum of four parcels to the exclusion of the other title owners who may even have a larger share of the quarter section.

In my opinion this bylaw is fatally flawed by being based on quarter sections; when parcels as registered with ISC have been the current recognized lawful right to property.
Just another reason to brainstorm before drafting a bylaw meant to be enacted. But that is not how ratepayers business is conducted; is it or not?

[oneoff]

jamesb: Its a lot like encouraging all your sons and daughters to pursue farming as a career. First you should spend some time making an honest assessment on if there is any hope of success or adequate success; whether there is sufficient public support; whether the council agenda position and demeanor (in it's current state) is worthy at your attempt furthering improvements in the procedures,objectives and goals of the Municipalities Act and democratic principles.

Probably being in a minority; how would any new councillor handle another councillor declaring a conflict of interest; but remaining in his seat; contributing comments in the discussion about the council motion and then maybe even taking part in the vote.
There is the matter of being associated (or seen to being associated ) with others who do not apparently admit that " a reeve or councillor can not do anything that they want". It is wrong to cast votes with the pre dtermined conclusion that they will always be against a certain party who might ever approach council on any issue.
Sorry; but as long as such issues are facts of life; no one should condone or applaud governments based on those inappropriate attitudes.
It is up to a lot more than a few to strive for open accountable governments. I can certainly live with whatever happens; and have less to lose than many others; (and interestingly more to gain) and while I will do much more than my share to attempt bringing information to light; the ultimate responsibility for good government rests upon a much larger population base.

[JACKFLASH]

oneoff; i know you have some serious shit going on in your RM. Where is the the transparcy. You are fully in your rights as land owner and tax payer to go in and request a presentation to RM council.

[oneoff]

The only satisfaction one will ever get from a group of "pack thinkers" is when they were forced to backtrack on a completely outrageous infringement on basic human rights.
After arguing that they strongly believed no one should use those rights; they unamiously changed a motion to support those rights.
As I said; you had to be there; and very few will ever know; first hand; what is council's true intent.
And that is why there is no permanent, "live" record of what really was meant; and could be proven or spread to all the ratepayers who surely would not tolerate what is going on;......... or not.