By KEVIN BERGER, Local Journalism Initiative
The RM of Corman Park will be sending a letter to the province expressing council’s concerns over new reporting and meeting requirements being placed on organized hamlets, which could have their hamlet status removed if they fail to comply.
During the administration committee meeting on March 17, councillors voted unanimously on a recommendation to submit a letter to the Ministry of Government Relations about the new organized hamlet agreements required by provincial legislation.
This recommendation was later approved as part of the consent agenda at the regular Corman Park council meeting on March 31.
At the March 17 meeting, council had received a report for information about the new formal agreements the RM must enter into with its 11 organized hamlets.
Incidentally, the Saskatchewan government website defines a hamlet as an area with a rural municipality that contains at least 10 subdivided lots and at least five occupied homes.
An organized hamlet is created by a Minister’s order and its residents must elect a three-person board that acts in an advisory capacity to the RM council.
As pointed out by Chief Administrative Officer (CAO) Kerry Hilts, organized hamlets only exist under the authority of the RM council, who must ultimately approve any decisions made by a hamlet board.
“They have no funding and they have no decision-making ability. They basically run their hamlet, but it’s under your authority as council,” he said.
Among other things, the new formal agreements stipulate that hamlet boards must now hold four meetings per year in addition to an annual general meeting. They also have to establish polices regarding public notices and regularly submit both the minutes of every meeting and an annual budget to the RM for approval.
The agreements also spell out how hamlet board members will be elected and the length of their terms, as well as a process for disqualifying board members.
Hilts warned council that if a hamlet board “is not pulling their weight, you will have to make some tough decisions.”
He later clarified this would involve sending a report to the Minister of Government Relations, who in turn would deem if a hamlet is in violation of the new requirements and whether their hamlet status should be reverted.
A couple examples of what would prompt this response would be if a hamlet didn’t hold an AGM or if they didn’t submit a budget to the RM.
Overspending would also be an example; Hilts noted that the hamlet of Neuhorst overspent their budget a few years ago with the RM’s sanction, and they had to collect enough revenue to eventually cover that deficit.
“But if they didn’t do that, then we would have to have a different debate,” he said.
Hilts suggested the province was probably looking at shifting away from having hamlets entirely.
It should be noted the RM sought a $7,500 Targeted Sector Support Initiative grant in December 2025 in order to pay for the legal costs of preparing template agreements.
Each hamlet agreement would be mostly the same, though there would be some differences as some hamlets have roads the RM looks after.
The 11 organized hamlets have also been made aware of the new agreements and their requirements, as the matter was brought to their attention during two all-hamlet meetings with the RM in March 2025.
With the template agreements now completed, administration anticipated holding two more all-hamlet meetings in late April followed by meetings with each individualized hamlet to negotiate and complete the agreements.
COUNCIL REACTION
Councillors roundly expressed surprise at the new requirements being placed on hamlets.
Division 1 Councillor John Germs said he was comfortable with hamlets simply having an annual meeting once a year and wondered if it will become more difficult to get people to volunteer for these hamlet boards with these new requirements.
“I hope that the day doesn’t come that we need to take these hamlets over, because I think that’s going to be a lot more effort and work for our (administration),” he said.
“I think they’re managing their little hamlets quite well. I just hope it doesn’t come back to us.”
Division 3 Councillor Lyndon Haduik asked Hilts why the province was making hamlets go through all this trouble if they were intent on phasing them out.
Hilts suggested the government is taking the tactic of not forcing hamlets to dissolve, but asking for them to be stricken from the hamlet record if they fail to meet the new requirements.
Division 7 Councillor Calvin Vaandrager made the suggestion of sending a letter to the province outlining the RM’s concerns.
Division 4 Councillor David Greenwood also put forward a recommendation to alter the agreement between Corman Park and the residential subdivision of Greenbryre Estates so that it conforms to the same requirements as other organized hamlets.
Hilts noted that Greenbryre is not an organized hamlet, though they are already required to provide the RM with their budget.
However, Greenwood said he was concerned they were establishing a precedent where a hamlet could give up their status and still get tax money from the RM but not have to conform to these new requirements.
“We’ve given Greenbyre tax money like we would give a hamlet, but we’re not holding them to the same standard. Where’s the motivation for other hamlets to follow the same standard?”
The recommendation was ultimately defeated by a vote of 6-2, with Saleski also voting in favour.
Pointing out that Greenbryre was not an organized hamlet, Division 6 Councillor Steven Balzer asked what the benefit of making them conform to the new standards would be, “especially when we’re not concerned about them.”