City of Cranbrook East Hill Expansion Frequently Asked Questions

Why should I care about this proposed boundary expansion, and why should I vote on a referendum (if the City chooses to put this issue to a referendum)?

 

There are four reasons why we believe you should be concerned enough to vote in a referendum:

 

1.     As far as we know, this is the largest single expansion of the size of the City of Cranbrook in its history. It more than doubles the size of the City in a single decision.

 

2.     Acting on behalf of private land-owners outside Cranbrook, the City applied to the Province to more than double the size of our community about two years ago. And yet, the City has provided NO opportunities to have any form of public discussion, debate or review of options until the City chose to hold a public open house on July 27/09 and August 12/09 to which they had no provision for people to make formal comment, nor did they provide their own Elector Response Forms for people to fill out. We feel that this is much too important an issue to avoid public debate.

 

3.     More than doubling the size of City creates a wide range of questions and uncertainties about the fiscal (taxation), social and environmental effects such a decision will have on our community. We’re being told: “trust us, this will be good for you. We’ll do the planning later.” It is our opinion that this is not good enough for a decision of this magnitude.

 

4.    The City suggests that this is the only option to address the “need to supply land for future growth” and that inclusion of these lands within the City would “prevent their possible fragmentation into numerous smaller rural parcels.” As you’ll see in the information below (and in the accompanying fact sheet), this is NOT the only option and it may have the opposite effect.

 

Why is the City of Cranbrook planning to more than double its size?

This expansion is being done solely because of an application made in 2007 to include - inside the City boundaries - two parcels of land, owned by BC Limited Numbered companies.  This second application we are currently dealing with includes a third privately owned parcel and some crown land.  The expansion is NOT being done because this is part of the City’s Official Community Plan, which is designed to guide development and expansion.

The City claims that this East Hill boundary extension proposal is needed “to supply land for future growth” and that inclusion of these lands within the City would “prevent their possible fragmentation into numerous smaller rural parcels.” 

However, the City’s Official Community Plan states that we already have enough land inside the City boundaries to accommodate an additional 14,000 people. This is enough for a 74% increase in our existing population.  Since the Official Community Plan the city has expanded its boundaries to include Shadow Mountain along with a couple of other parcels, adding more land for future population growth.

In addition to freezing taxes at a very low rural rate, the City has extended this privilege to include  subdivision provided the lots are greater than 50 acres - essentially a financial inducement for them to fragment the East Hill into nearly three times as many lots as would be allowed if the area were to remain in the RDEK under its current zoning.

What is planned for the expansion area?

We don’t know for sure. Conceptual plans unveiled at a City Council meeting in August 2007 by consultants hired by the Landowners showed extensive housing development, three golf courses, business and industrial uses. BUT the landowners are not required to commit to anything before the land is brought into the City.

When the first application was made by the City to bring these lands into its boundaries, the landowners immediately put the land up for sale on Ritchie Bros.  Auction out of Vancouver.  They would receive a higher price for their lands once it is in city boundaries.

When is this Boundary Expansion going to happen?

The City’s plan to proceed with the expansion around the end of August, 2009 was set back when over 3,500 citizens filled in the Elector Response Forms required under the Alternative Approval Process.  More than the 1,475 signatures required.  The City did not want to take this issue to a referendum.  Instead they called for the AAP to be conducted during the August when most people are on vacation, or otherwise not thinking about boundary expansions. 

Why the rush?

That’s a good question. This is a question that should be posed to the Mayor and City Councillors.

Who should be concerned about this application?

•PROPERTY OWNERS inside the City who do not want to see their property taxes increase due to this expansion and who are already concerned about the cost of fixing the sewage system, deteriorating water lines and roads and other city infrastructure requirements.

•SENIORS ON FIXED INCOMES who would be most affected by a property tax increase.

•CITY RESIDENTS who appreciate the natural beauty of our area and do not see a need for such a large expansion into areas that are used for recreation.

•RDEK RESIDENTS who are fearful that such a large development would negatively impact their rural lifestyle.

•COMMUNITY WORKERS who question how more GATED COMMUNITIES and HIGH END seasonal REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT will encourage affordable housing, a more vibrant economy (once the construction is finished) and a healthier social and economic environment for all our citizens.

•ANYONE concerned about our “global footprint”, especially the availability of water into the future (with three more golf courses, new housing developments, etc.) or the increases in use of energy, which are critical global issues now. An expansion on this scale does not match with the Mayor’s stated desire to make this a sustainable community.

But doesn’t new development pay for itself?

Developers do pay a flat-rate Development Cost Charge to the City, which is supposed to cover some of these costs. BUT Cranbrook’s DCC’s are one of the lowest in the province, 1/8 of Invermere’s and 1/5 of Fernie’s. 

While developers are normally required to cover the infrastructure costs (sewer, water, streets, curbs, side-walks, etc) inside developments, it is not clear what the actual costs of adding 9000 acres to the City will be on tax-payers. 

We do know that the burden of providing policing, fire protection, municipal services and so on to this additional 9000 acres will be shared by all taxpayers in the City. 

One of the conditions of the expansion is a 20 year tax freeze at rural rates for the land-owners, unless they subdivide the land into parcels less than 50 acres in size.

Has the City consulted with residents about this expansion?

Not until the Alternative Approval Process was implemented.  There have been two Open Houses hosted by the property owners of the Limited Numbered Company’s and set up by their consultants, however public comment sheets submitted at the time seem to be only in the hands of the property owners and not for public review. The City scheduled two public open houses, the last week of July and the first week of August, in order to comply with the legal requirements for a boundary expansion. There was no opportunity at those information sessions for the  public to make formal comments, nor were the city’s own Elector Response forms available for people so sign.  Unfortunately, this couldn’t be a worse time for community feedback, as it is the time of year when most people in Canada, including Cranbrook, take their vacation.

Why do we need a Referendum on this?

We need a Referendum because there is not enough information being provided by the City of Cranbrook to justify this expansion.  The true cost to taxpayers is not known. The results of the $500,000 Growth Management Study have not been provided.  The need for more housing isn’t proven.  And the City’s argument that they need control of the land so that the development is managed does not stand up to scrutiny, given that the Regional District has excellent planning and zoning in place for the area now.