Friday 27 May 2016

Ratepayers of Kings Co meeting


Message for the HANTS Border News & Views blog
Re the meeting below…see notice attached …
Ratepayers of Kings County meeting

May 25th 2016
Hantsport Fire HALL.

·         The meeting started late as there were a large unexpected turnout of attendees.

For some reason a virtually full complement of Hantsport Fire-fighters also attended.

Cathie Osborne , CAO of West  Hants Municipality , opened the meeting and introduced the Hantsport Fire Chief, Peter Johnson & Deputy Fire Chief, Paul Maynard.
Also attending were Cllr. Mike Ennis representing Ward 12 of Kings Co. & Rhonda Brown, Municipal Clerk/Returning Officer, Municipality of the District of West Hants.
After giving a brief outline of the purpose for this meeting Ms. Osborne handed over to the Deputy Chief who used a slide presentation to explain the costs involved
running a volunteer Fire Station.
The Deputy Chief informed the attendees of a few current call statistics. The Hantsport Fire Station has a compliment of 48 fire-fighters who spend an
average of  301 hours per year with the Station either working, training or general maintenance. The total man hours spent @ the station averages out at around 14,448  in total.
He said that there is over $1,000,000 worth of trucks & assorted fire –fighting equipment currently on site.
·         Handouts of the slide presentation were handed out to the attendees only after the presentation, upon request.

Because of the fallout between West Hants & the Windsor Fire Brigade the Hantsport Fire station was asked to increase their coverage to include Falmouth.
To take advantage of this in 2015 Hantsport Fire Brigade then requested $ 743,534.80 by way of Capital expenditure to purchase a new Pierce tanker, a new Pierce Saber Pumper
& a 6 passenger van for transport.
·         Kings County Municipality were apparently not consulted about this expenditure.
Having agreed to & funding this expenditure West Hants then proportioned the costs as….West Hants $132, 051.78- Hantsport $269,977.49 & Kings Co $ 341,505.53……..total $743,534.80
West Hants then determined that an area rate of $48.95 per $100,000 of property assessment should be applied to the home owners of Hants Border, Lockhartville, Avonport,
West Brooklyn & Bishopville and it would be sought from & through Kings County Municipality by saying it would be an appropriate share of this Capital expenditure
based on the apparent statistic that 45.93% of the Hantsport call outs were made to the aforementioned  5 communities of Kings Co.

There followed an extensive questions & answers session. The writer of this missive sent in 12 pertinent questions to the West Hants Hants CAO & Chief Clerk----none of which were answered.
Several more questions went unanswered & voices were raised at times.
One resident reminded West Hants that a few years ago Kings County were being billed  for more than the full operational cost of the HFD. Of course their memory was vague on this fact.
Several attendees praised the Hantsport Fire Fighters for their volunteerism & history of excellent support to the local Community.
However this meeting wasn’t to discuss the wants & needs of the Hantsport Fire Brigade, there was the hope that there would be a full financial disclosures so that folks
could make an informed decision – yes or no to the AREA rate- Unfortunately this hope did not materialize. The meeting degenerated in a disorderly fashion in its later stages.
Harsh criticism was directed to the West Hants Municipality for the lack of prior proper publicity of this meeting, the rushed nature of the proposed area rate request plus the fact that the Municipality  went out & made these capital expenditures and now simply expected the residents of Kings Co to pay the bulk of it, ($341, 505.53), by way of an imposed Area tax rate.

·         While Area rates are used in West Hants - Kings County do not use Area rates as means to raise funds.

Hants Border resident Doug Symonds read out to the meeting his message of concerns addressed to all the various parties involved & his message was warmly received by the near 150 attendees.
The consensus of opinion was that while everyone present was grateful for the work done by the Hantsport Fire Station there was a strong feeling of resentment towards West Hants Municipality
for their apparent arrogance in thinking the 5 Kings Co communities involved would simply agree to this tax increase but some residents of these 5 communities have long memories & recall officers  of the old Town OF Hantsport, (now West Hants), publically calling them “freeloaders” & “parasites”.
In my opinion the meeting was premature, poorly handled & typical of the whole shambolic process as presented by West Hants.

There then came the call for a secret ballot vote….one vote per Kings County resident.
There were 83 attending folks eligible to vote.
75 actual votes were cast.
21 voted in favour of an 4.89% Area rate tax.

·         54 voted against the idea of an 4.89% Area rate tax.

The results & the Area rate request from West Hants will now be presented to the Kings Co full Council on June 7th, 2106
Where we go from here is anybody’s guess.
These 5 communities of Kings Co are not going to simply roll over & be a greedy cash grab by the West Hants Municipality.
Why we don’t mind paying our fair share for the service of adequate Fire protection why we should we pay for the extravagant Capital spending of another county?

Regards,
David Old
Hants Border Militia



Regards,

David Old



2 comments:

  1. I do think we were there to discuss the wants and needs of the Hantsport Fire Dept. I believe that was the only reason we were there- They need a new fire truck and also needed to figure out how it was going to be paid for now that it was purchased.

    ReplyDelete
  2. We were there to listen to a poor presentation by the WEST HANTS CAO trying to convince Kings Co taxpayers that they should pay for misguided West Hants capital expenditure.
    It was denied by a huge majority...Kings Co residents will pay for Fire Protection service but not FOR capital expenditure made by another County led by an arrogant CAO.

    ReplyDelete

Thanks for your comments. I will publish anonymous comments at my discretion.
-Heather