GROWTH MANAGEMENT STRATEGY DOCUMENT INFORMATIONlivepage.apple.com

The Cost

The initial budget for the City’s $500,000 Growth Management Study was set in 2007 with the work to be carried out in 2008.  The study was finally released to the public at the end of September 2010.

Having committed such a large sum of money to this important document why did Council not wait until the results were available before proceeding with the East Hill Boundary Expansion?

EXCERPTS FROM THE GMS TERMS OF REFERENCE

The Request for Proposals Growth Management Strategy document includes the following statements about the current state of the City’s infrastructure (Terms of Reference pages 1-4) “Existing City infrastructure is in generally poor condition and the ability of this infrastructure to support anticipated growth is, at best, questionable. . . . Transportation infrastructure is also deficient in many respects and future needs require definition at the major arterial road network level as well as the development of sufficient traffic modeling to ensure that adequate traffic engineering needs are identified and implemented in step with growth demands. . .”

Not only is the City’s infrastructure in poor condition, but it is acknowledged in the Terms of Reference that:

“Objectives/methodology

The City’s current 5 year financial plan does not address the growth demands currently before the City and the current DCC Bylaw has not been reviewed since it was adopted in 2004. City administration has identified an urgent need for a financial planning model that will address current as well as future capital infrastructure needs and operating costs for a 30 year planning horizon. There is also an urgent requirement to review DCC rates to shield existing taxpayers from rapidly escalating growth related costs.”

This is quite different from the situation described in the Mayor’s full page ad (August 14, 2009 Daily Townsman) where it is claimed that current taxpayers do not pay for services to new developments. 

ELIMINATING PUBLIC CONSULTATION

To reduce costs, the initial Terms of Reference for the study were amended before finalizing the contract with Stantec Consulting Ltd. These were described in a letter dated Mar. 25/08. Most of the savings came at the cost of removing opportunities for public consultation but other important tasks were also eliminated or re-assigned. 

“Budget item 1.5 Public Open House & Client Meeting estimated at $23,774 has been struck from our professional Fee Estimate.  A client meeting was intended to follow the open house as an opportunity to discuss the public feedback.  Without the open house this client meeting is not necessary.” 

Public consultation was clearly intended to form an essential part of this important study. Are citizens and taxpayers to be left completely in the dark about recommended actions that have major implications for the social and economic well being of our city?

WHERE IS THE LAND INVENTORY?

“Budget item 1.2 Review Land Inventory estimated at $5,279 is retained as a work plan item however the consultant budget has been reduced to zero on the understanding that City staff will undertake the update of the City’s developable land inventory”. Has this work been completed? Without this critical information how can the consultants make informed recommendations about the needs for City growth?  (A Google Earth search of Cranbrook is very enlightening to help identify opportunities for growth, including underutilized and vacant lands between Wildstone and Shadow Mountain).

Task 2.5 Prepare Financial Plan involved a significant public consultation component during preparation of the DCC Bylaw.  At the March 5th project team meeting, City staff representatives advised Stantec that public and stakeholder consultation would be addressed by the City and that it would be appropriate to omit the fees and expenses for such tasks from the budget.  . . . Stantec proposed to reduce Task 2.5 fees and disbursement by $27,054 . . .” 

Of note is the statement in the recent draft of the “Technical Background Report Cranbrook Economic Development Strategy 2008-2013” document which states:  “Clearly, there are ample unused or underutilized industrial lots available for businesses that want to expand, start-up, or relocate to the City of Cranbrook.”

TIMING

The date for release of the Growth Management Study was been set back numerous times. Is Council attempting to delay the release of this document until after a vote is held on the East Hill Boundary Expansion?

January 22, 2009 Townsman:  “A growth management plan focusing on the East Hill Boundary expansion should be ready by summer, he said.  Such a plan would guide the direction of the city’s growth for the next 50 years, Manjak said.”  If the study is focused primarily on the East Hill, and voters reject the extension, have we not just wasted a half a million dollars?

Mayor Manjak Mar. 4/09 letter to CLC:  “Council has set aside resources to conduct a public information program should the province authorize the city to proceed with the public advisory phase ... has also set aside resources to proceed with a public participatory initiative that will provide opportunities for all residents and interested groups to develop community based principles to guide development of the East Hill lands.”  It sounds as though the intention of a public participatory initiative is to occur AFTER the East Hill lands are brought in.   Are the community based principles to be focused solely on the East Hill? What about a vision for our entire community BEFORE the East Hill lands are brought in?

September 3, 2009 letter from City of Cranbrook to CLC re:  Request for Information: 

“. . . .  The City Engineer advised he anticipates a complete submission sometime after Christmas.  Once the contract works are complete to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, we would be pleased to offer you the opportunity to review the documents.”

The City Council set the referendum date at November 14, 2009.

The Council has removed every opportunity to hear from the residents of this City on a very important decision that could impact our taxes, our social fabric, and our environment.  Why is the public being left out of this discussion and who is driving the direction of our community? Is this democratic?