This vote by the Council of the Municipality of the County of Kings, not to "be involved" in the Town of Hantsport dissolution process, doesn't mean that Kings County is no longer an option. I believe the UARB could still make it so.
The following excerpt from a letter, dated January 20, 2015 (available on UARB website), from the UARB to various parties involved in this process states: "That being said, the Board cannot require any party to participate in this proceeding. The Board has not received any comment on this issue from the Municipality of the County of Kings. However, as noted in previous correspondence dated December 22, 2014, the Board notes from s. 399(2) of the Municipal Government Act that it may still, after hearing the evidence, order that the Town be dissolved into the Municipality of the County of Kings. This could occur, even in the absence of Kings' participation at the hearing."
Interestingly, based on the timeline, the decision and vote by MOK was made based on the Opus and Grant Thorton reports, apparently accepting the findings of those reports at face value. Similar to how some members of Hantsport Town Council and the Transition Committee decided that dissolution into Hants West was the only viable option, based only on those reports, commissioned by the Transition Committee. However, since then and more recently, as suspected by some concerned citizens of Hantsport, significant doubts have been raised about the validity of many of the underlying assumptions within the Grant Thorton financial report, within follow-up reports commissioned by the UARB (Levy et al and Fisher Consulting).
This vote by the Council of the Municipality of the County of Kings, not to "be involved" in the Town of Hantsport dissolution process, doesn't mean that Kings County is no longer an option. I believe the UARB could still make it so.
ReplyDeleteThe following excerpt from a letter, dated January 20, 2015 (available on UARB website), from the UARB to various parties involved in this process states: "That being said, the Board cannot require any party to participate in this proceeding. The Board
has not received any comment on this issue from the Municipality of the County of Kings. However, as noted in previous correspondence dated December 22, 2014, the Board notes from s. 399(2) of the Municipal Government Act that it may still, after hearing the evidence, order that the Town be dissolved into the Municipality of the County of Kings. This could occur, even in the absence of Kings' participation at the hearing."
Interestingly, based on the timeline, the decision and vote by MOK was made based on the Opus and Grant Thorton reports, apparently accepting the findings of those reports at face value. Similar to how some members of Hantsport Town Council and the Transition Committee decided that dissolution into Hants West was the only viable option, based only on those reports, commissioned by the Transition Committee. However, since then and more recently, as suspected by some concerned citizens of Hantsport, significant doubts have been raised about the validity of many of the underlying assumptions within the Grant Thorton financial report, within follow-up reports commissioned by the UARB (Levy et al and Fisher Consulting).
I guess we'll know soon enough.
Thanks,
Martin Vander Baaren