As a longtime resident of the RM of Springfield, I understand that our municipality has a lot of priorities competing for the same tax dollars. We need to invest in major infrastructure like our lagoon and water treatment plant to make sure our community has the capacity and services it needs for the future.

But I also believe recreation needs to be part of that conversation.

Recreation facilities aren't just “nice things to have.” Arenas, sports fields, walking tracks, gyms, playgrounds and other community spaces are a big part of what makes people want to live here.

As our community grows, our recreational facilities need to grow with it.

A good example is the new rec centre currently being built in Oakbank. This is a major investment in our community, and like any large project, it's fair to ask questions about cost and long-term value.

But I think we also need to look at what this facility will provide for decades to come. It will give local families, kids, adults and seniors more opportunities to be active without always having to travel outside our municipality. It will provide additional space for sports, programs, events and community gatherings that we simply haven't had before.

For families, having these opportunities close to home matters. Kids need places to play sports, stay active and spend time with their friends. Adults and seniors need places to exercise, socialize and be involved in the community.

There is also an economic benefit. A facility capable of hosting games, tournaments and events brings people into our community. Those visitors buy gas, eat at restaurants and spend money at local businesses. Quality recreational facilities also make Springfield more attractive to families and businesses considering moving or investing here.

Of course cost matters, but there is a difference between being careful with taxpayers' money and being afraid to invest in our community.

Many of the facilities we enjoy today weren't built just for the people living here at the time. They were built knowing that future generations would use them too.

I think the new recreation centre should be looked at the same way.

Our municipality is going to change and grow. The question is whether we're going to plan for that growth and make sure the services and facilities people need grow along with it.

I want my tax dollars spent responsibly just like any resident. I want important infrastructure like our lagoon and water treatment plant properly planned and funded. But I also want to live in a community where families have things to do, kids have places to play, seniors have places to stay active, and neighbours have places to come together.

To me, those things aren't competing with building a strong community.

They are part of building one.

-Blair Sidorow

It is often easier to believe a simple lie than a complicated truth. A simple lie arrives neatly packaged. It gives people someone to blame, something to fear, and a quick explanation for problems that are rarely quick or simple.

The truth, by contrast, takes work. It asks us to look at history, context, evidence, and consequences.

That is why the claim in a recent newsletter is so troubling. It tells residents that Springfield faces only two choices: “aggressive urbanization” with higher debt, higher taxes, and pressure on land and water, or the protection of rural identity, farmland, green-belt, and responsible growth.

But that framing is not an argument; it is a false choice.

Responsible planning does not have to mean reckless urbanization, and protecting rural character does not require rejecting every difficult conversation about growth, services, infrastructure,housing, or long-term financial responsibility.

Words like “higher debt,” “higher taxes,” and “pressure on our land and water” are serious concerns, and residents are right to care about them. But simply attaching those fears to the phrase “urbanization” does not prove that all growth is dangerous or that every planning decision is a threat to Springfield’s future.

If a claim is true, it should be supported with clear evidence, not presented as a warning label meant to alarm people before they have heard the full facts.

Our community deserves more than slogans that place neighbours into opposing camps: those who supposedly want “aggressive urbanization” and those who supposedly want to “protect” Springfield. Most residents want the same basic things: farmland respected,water protected, taxes managed carefully, and growth handled responsibly.

The real debate should be about how to achieve those goals, not about frightening people with the idea that there are only two extreme paths.

Disagreement is part of democracy, but misinformation should not be. If we want honest debate, we must be willing to do the harder work: reject the easy lie, examine the complicated truth, and treat one another with enough respect to argue from facts rather than fear.

-Ralph Regehr

“Springfield Needs Progress, Not Endless Delays”

I’ve watched the RM of Springfield try to move forward on important community projects, and what’s become increasingly clear is how much time and momentum we’ve lost because of repeated Municipal Board hearings launched by one opposition group.

These hearings are supposed to be used when there is a serious concern that needs independent review. Instead, they’ve become a routine tactic that stalls progress, drains staff resources, and keeps Springfield stuck in place.

Every hearing requires extensive preparation, documentation, legal review, and staff time —even when the issue has already been debated, researched, and voted on. When hearings become frequent, they stop being a safeguard and start becoming an obstacle.

The result is predictable: projects slow down, costs increase, and the RM spends more time defending decisions than implementing them.

The real cost isn’t just measured in dollars or hours. It’s measured in lost opportunities. While other municipalities move ahead with infrastructure upgrades, community facilities, and long‑term planning, Springfield is forced to hit pause again and again. Residents wait longer for improvements. Staff are pulled away from day‑to‑day work. Council meetings become more about revisiting old battles than addressing new challenges.

Healthy debate is important. Oversight is important. But when the same group repeatedly files objections that trigger Municipal Board hearings, it stops being about improving decisions and starts being about preventing them. That kind of obstruction doesn’t help Springfield.

It hurts our ability to plan, build, and grow.

Springfield deserves a process that allows for questions and concerns — but also allows for progress. We need to get back to working together, respecting the democratic decisions made at council, and focusing on what moves our community forward. Endless hearings don’t build anything. Collaboration does.

If we want Springfield to thrive, we need fewer roadblocks and more cooperation.

It’s time to put our energy into solutions instead of delays.

As municipal elections approach this fall, many individuals are stepping forward to represent ratepayers in all municipalities. For that alone, we should commend them for their courage and commitment to running for a position that requires significant volunteer work and the ability to manage a diverse range of ratepayer concerns.

In addition, special interest and activist groups will become more prominent and disseminate misleading and false information. As ratepayers and voters, it is our responsibility to critically evaluate the messages we encounter and question them thoroughly. We must be well-informed to develop critical thinking skills.

One significant issue within the RM of Springfield concerns inaccurate information regarding borrowing bylaws and actual borrowing. An activist group in Springfield is misrepresenting borrowing bylaws and the actual borrowing of projects - spin marketing intended to spread false information. One chart they present depicts the RM on the verge of borrowing millions of dollars and extending its debt, resulting in 25 per cent or more tax increases and necessitating immediate action.

The chart is inaccurate. The borrowing bylaw is the maximum amount the RM is permitted to borrow. It does not necessarily reflect the actual amount that will be borrowed. To clarify, a borrowing bylaw is not a loan. It is permission for the RM to borrow money when necessary. For the Rec Centre project, the borrowing bylaw is set at $23 million, which represents the total project cost. However, the RM has already raised $11.7 million, so the amount it may need to borrow is significantly lower, approximately $11.3 million. As additional funds are secured through grants and fundraising, the amount could further decrease. For residents of the RM of Springfield, it is beneficial to gain a comprehensive understanding of the actual workings of the RM.

Mike Witkowicz Oakbank, MB

During my time on council, we didn't always agree, but we understood the job. We respected the Municipal Act, respected each other and respected the residents who came to participate in the democratic process.
That shared commitment allowed us to move major projects forward: expanding water service for two
Oakbank developments, bringing Anola the sewer and water treatment system it needed to end a boil-water
advisory and building Springfield's first lagoon so every property owner had proper sewage disposal.
These projects required borrowing bylaws, public hearings and difficult decisions. They succeeded because council acted as one body, not competing camps. Residents engaged respectfully, and councillors focused on serving the entire municipality.
Today, that standard has slipped. When councillors routinely vote to oppose infrastructure projects and borrowing bylaws, claiming it is in the name of transparency and accountability, that is not genuine oversight.
It is a tactic that disrupts the process and prevents council from functioning as a unified decision-making body.
Under this banner, too many important projects have been delayed, and too little progress has been made. When councillors hold their own town hall meetings aimed at a specific interest group and encourage supporters to interrupt and derail council proceedings, that is not representation. It is splintered governance, and it is the opposite of how municipal government is supposed to function.

The repercussions are serious. A divided, disorderly council damages a municipality's reputation. Other levels of government pay close attention to whether a council can work together, and dysfunction makes it harder to secure grants or partnerships. Delayed decisions mean delayed projects - and in municipal infrastructure, delays always mean higher costs. Every month spent revisiting old arguments is a month where construction costs rise, inflation climbs and opportunities slip away.

A dysfunctional council doesn't just create frustration; it creates financial consequences for every
resident.

The Municipal Act is clear: council makes decisions collectively, governs through bylaws, represents the
whole municipality and stewards public resources responsibly. Individual councillors must act in the interest of the entire RM, participate fully in meetings, maintain confidentiality, follow the code of conduct and avoid conflicts of interest. These principles are not optional. They are the foundation of a functional council.

When councillors abandon these responsibilities, the municipality pays the price. Progress stalls. Staff
time is wasted. Residents lose confidence in the process.
Towns and RMs cannot afford a council where some members pull in a different direction and treat
public hearings as a stage for a special interest group.
The upcoming election gives residents the chance to restore a council that works together.
Serving as a councillor was one of the most rewarding experiences of my life, and it required teamwork, patience and respect for the role.

On Oct. 28, I encourage residents to choose candidates based on their qualifications and their ability to
work as part of a team. Our future depends on councils that understands their duties, respects the Municipal
Act and represents the whole community - not just a select few.
- Doug Shaver was a councillor for the RM of Springfield from 2002 to 2006

Springfield voters hitting the polls in this fall's municipal election will choose from a selection of candidates, including several who are either formally or more loosely affiliated with a particular entity - the Springfield Taxpayers' Rights Corporation (STRC). The STRC was formed in the wake of a previous council's approval of a peat moss processing facility. It has since weighed in about issues like Sio Silica and infrastructure projects.

In late July, the STRC produced a pamphlet introducing readers to three candidates in this fall's election - Margaret Marion-Akins (mayor), Jill Overall (Ward 1) and Georgina Mustard (Ward 4). Water quality and protection, responsible growth and increased citizen input are among their priorities. On the surface, those are laudable aims. How the entire Sio Silica process developed encouraged people to coalesce to fight it. That makes sense, too. With that battle far from over, they have plenty of work still ahead of them. Does such an organized entity have a place in Springfield politics?

If one agrees with every one of the STRC's positions, perhaps so. Then it's preaching to the choir. What about those who disagree with some or all of that group's positions? What about those who are brushing up on the issues in preparation for voting on Oct. 28? Can they be assured that an STRC-affiliated candidate will represent them and not the organization?

The electorate must educate themselves so they can ask the right questions when candidates come knocking on their door. The STRC has participated in a coordinated misinformation campaign that has led some to believe Springfield plans on borrowing $90 million over the next few years. They paid to deliver messaging to Springfield homes. They once advertised in The Clipper, but subsequent ads were refused due to inaccurate information.

A 2024 STRC handout, dubbed "A Referendum on Springfield's Future", contained STRC director Allan Akins claiming that council's plans will balloon municipal debt by $55 million, and a bar graph depicting Springfield's plans for $93.3 million in capital spending. That graph claims Springfield's capital plans "may" increase household taxes by $2,000 per year. Municipal staff responded with a document dated Oct. 31, 2024 saying information disseminated by STRC does not portray the full picture of the capital budget planning process, the scrutiny management and council apply on projects, and the various funding sources identified before large capital projects are undertaken. That process is applied to projects big and small, including on the sewage lagoon. The 2024 STRC document twice noted in smaller print that the borrowed amount could be lowered by grants and reserves. However, the clear message is one of significant borrowing. Staff said the STRC's calculations of up to $2,000 of added property taxes per landowner assume the municipal tax base remains constant over 20 years.

That is highly unlikely, as it doesn't account for new homes and value increases on existing ones. Voters must also be aware of the natural checks and balances to prevent municipalities from spending themselves into the poor house. Borrowing requires public hearings and provincial approvals. The Province of Manitoba also tracks borrowing figures to keep municipalities in line.

Entering 2026, Springfield's outstanding debt is just under $5 million. It can borrow close to $139 million, meaning it's borrowing at less than four per cent of capacity. That $5 million is for payments on nine projects, including the municipal office, Anola Community Club, firehalls in Oakbank and the industrial park and rural drainage projects.

The STRC has backtracked on multiple claims. The $90 million in infrastructure costs they once cited has been reduced to $80 million. While the claimed taxpayer impact was once $2,000 per home, it is now $1,250, according to STRC documentation. A group claiming transparency as a core principle must be prepared to answer how these numbers were developed and why they've changed. Of the Dugald Oakbank Water System's estimated cost, is the entire $29.2 million included in their (now) $80 million estimate, or is it just the $8.8 million Springfield has stated it plans to borrow? On its face, the desire for more public say in major projects is also commendable. However, it should be noted that in the case of Springfield's development plan and zoning bylaws, the public had multiple opportunities for comment over many years, including numerous public hearings, workshops, and open houses. If the STRC needs more public engagement, perhaps that's a veil for delaying until they get a response they like. Those claiming to hold government accountable must abide by those same standards.

- Tony Zerucha is the associate editor at Clipper Publishing

I hate paying high taxes as much as anyone, but I think we need to look at the bigger picture.
We need the water treatment plant. It is what it is.
As a Realtor, I talk to people every day and I see a housing need that I don't think everyone
realizes exists.
I have people who have lived in Springfield their entire lives who are ready to get off the farm
or acreage, but they don't want to leave their family, friends and community. We have seniors
looking to downsize and very few options.
I also deal with divorced and separated families who desperately want to stay here so their
kids can remain in the same school, close to their friends and family. Suddenly one household
becomes two, and neither parent necessarily can - or should have to - buy a $600,000 house.
I have plenty of people looking for something around $300,000 or less, and we simply don't
have enough of that housing here.
Then we have young people and young families who grew up here and would like to stay here
too.
Growth isn't just about bringing strangers into Springfield. A lot of it is about making room for
the people who are already part of Springfield.
And yes, growth brings services and businesses that people throughout the municipality
enjoy. Oakbank can support those things because it has the population and infrastructure to
do so.
Everybody is against growth until the need lands on their own doorstep - until it's their parents
who need a condo, their adult child who needs an affordable home, their son or daughter
going through a divorce who wants to keep the kids in their school, or they themselves want to
downsize after 40 years without leaving everyone they know.
That doesn't mean taxpayers should accept any price. Absolutely not. Council should be
pursuing every available grant, infrastructure program and appropriate developer contribution
to minimize the burden on existing taxpayers.
I own a commercial building in Oakbank, so believe me, I don't enjoy our taxes either. I pay
substantial commercial taxes plus quarterly sewer charges and receive very little in direct
services - I don't even get garbage pickup.

But we can't pretend the housing demand isn't there because we don't like growth.
We need the infrastructure to accommodate it, and we need to be smart about how we do it.

• Connie Kosky

I have spent my whole life in Springfield.  I went to school here.  I farmed here, as well as operated a business here.  I also had the privilege of serving on Council for 4 years.  So when I hear rural folks say, “Why should I pay for town water when I’ve got my own well?” — I get it. Many of us have spent a lot of money drilling and maintaining our wells. It’s not cheap. 

But here’s the thing I’ve learned after decades of watching this municipality grow: water doesn’t care where you live. It moves.

What happens in town doesn’t stay in town. When old wastewater systems start failing or when development outgrows the pipes and lagoons we’ve got, that strain shows up in the groundwater. And that groundwater is the same water rural families drink every day. 

We’re already seeing warning signs. A lot of wells in Oakbank — right in the middle of town — are close to failing because the aquifer is under pressure. That’s not just an urban problem. It’s a sign that the whole system is stressed. Groundwater is connected. If it’s struggling in Oakbank today, it can struggle in the countryside tomorrow. 

That’s why modern water and wastewater infrastructure matters to all of us. A proper water treatment plant and a well‑designed sewage facility help protect the aquifers we all rely on. Once groundwater gets contaminated, fixing it is either extremely expensive or impossible. I’ve seen farmers lose wells. It’s not something you want to go through. 

There’s another part of this conversation we can’t ignore. If Springfield wants to keep young families here, we need some responsible development. Right now, a lot of young people who grew up in Springfield can’t afford to buy a home here. They want to stay, but there’s nowhere they can afford. Without updated water and wastewater systems, we simply can’t build the kind of attainable housing that keeps families in the community. Infrastructure is what makes growth possible — and keeps it controlled so farmland is protected. 

Supporting modern infrastructure isn’t about choosing town over country. It’s about protecting our shared water, our farmland, and the future of Springfield. Rural and urban residents may live differently, but we’re tied together by the same aquifers, the same environment, and the same need for long‑term planning. 

I’ve farmed here my whole life, had a business here and I’ve served this municipality. And I believe that investing in strong, modern infrastructure is one of the best ways to make sure Springfield stays healthy, resilient, and a place where future generations can put down roots. 

Howard Bredin