A fight between the hamlet of Lone Rock and the RM of Wilton spilled over into a Battleford courtroom Wednesday, Feb. 20.
The fight is over the Lone Rock Renewal Project, which would see Lone Rock change from hamlet status to a country residential subdivision.
The five-phase renewal project is outlined on the RM of Wilton’s website and runs to January 2022. Several Lone Rock residents have voiced opposition to the plan, accusing the RM of essentially trying to get rid of the hamlet and remove its residents as a way to get out of paying to maintain the community.
Tensions were heightening tensions by a revelation in 2018 that the RM was using a numbered company to buy up homes and encourage residents to relocate out of the community, without residents knowing the identity of the numbered company.
The dispute came before Justice Brenda Hildebrandt in Battleford Queen’s Bench Court chambers, with litigants seeking judicial review to put the brakes to the RM’s conversion plans.
In the background of this court fight is the sad reality that Lone Rock is a community in deep decline, having already been downgraded from village status.
The RM of Wilton website states there are a number of reasons why they are considering conversion to country-residential, pointing to the continued decrease in the SAMA assessment to $2.1 million from a 2017 assessment of $4.1 million, declining property values, as well as an operating deficit for the hamlet of $137,897.42 as of July 31, 2018.
Compounding the hamlet’s problems is a water and sewer infrastructure in need of costly replacement to service the few people remaining. The area is due for complete water renewal as early as 2022-24, estimated between $1.5 to $2 million, according to the RM’s website. Complete wastewater renewal would have an anticipated cost of $1.5 million, according to the RM numbers.
Instead of replacing water and sewer, the RM is calling for decommissioning of the hamlet’s water and sewer services in the next three to five years. On its website the RM has offered to continue sewer operations to November 2020 and water operations to November 2022, with all required water/sewer options to be completed by that time. After that, remaining residents would need to rely on private options.
Subsidizing the hamlet appears to be a sticking point for the RM.
“Currently, the residents of Lone Rock pay approximatelyhalf of the cost of hamlet maintenance and operations. The balance is covered by the tax dollars of other ratepayers in the RM,” stated the RM on their website.
“We believe that chronic subsidization one people group at the expense of another is NOT acceptable. We are committed to providing the best possible outcomes for all Lone Rock residents, both those choosing to change their address, and those who chose to remain,” the RM later stated.
In Battleford Court of Queen’s Bench, litigants from Lone Rock sought judicial review of the RM’s actions. Arguing their case was lawyer Lauren Wihak, who also filed a lengthy legal brief. She focused on three issues: the alleged rezoning or reversion of the status of the hamlet, the alleged “indirect expropriation” of homes in the hamlet and the allegation that the RM acted in bad faith.
Wihak particularly zeroed in on the RM using a numbered company to buy up homes in Wilton.
“It is now known that the unidentified buyer of the homes in Wilton was Wilton, and that the numbered company was created by Wilton,” said Wihak.
These facts were deliberately kept from ratepayers of the hamlet, she said, because if buyers became aware that the buyer was Wilton, the prices would increase.
No bylaw or resolution was passed to create the numbered company or transfer the properties into the ownership of Wilton, she said. Wihak said 35 people reside in 15 homes in the hamlet, and that Wilton has acquired 31 additional lots in Lone Rock and now owns 62 of them. She also said water and sewer was disconnected from all the properties purchased by Wilton.
Wihak characterized the buying up of homes by the RM as “indirect expropriation.”
She argued the goal of the RM was to “be rid of this community that it views as a financial drain.” Wihak also argued the RM had no authority under the Municipalities Act and that the “indirect expropriation” didn’t follow the Municipal Expropriation Act.
Lawyer Gerald Heinrichs, representing the RM of Wilton, took issue with the litigants’ contention that there was “expropriation.” His argument was that all land sales that took place had willing sellers, willing buyers and lawyers handling the transactions.
He pointed out several persons had initiated contact with the RM “on their own,” looking to sell their property. Heinrich also pointed out the sale price was appraised value plus five percent.
“None of these transactions were expropriations or anything of the sort,” said Heinrich.
He dismissed the applicants’ contentions as a “mountain of speculation” as to what they thought was happening. There was no evidence to support expropriation, he said.
Heinrichs also noted there was no bylaw or resolution to turn off any water or sewer, nor is such pending, he said. Water and sewer services have continued.
He also argued the conversion plan was in the discussion phase only and would require multiple steps. He also challenged the idea that there was no consultation.
A decision has been reserved in the case.
