Fact Sheet

- Proposed Eastern Boundary Extension – City of Cranbrook -

Overview, Location and Size

Based on a request from two private property owners in 2007, the City of Cranbrook announced its intention to expand the City’s boundary to the east (see map attached). If this decision goes ahead, the expansion would increase the size of the City by about 9000 acres. This would more than double the size of the City!

Rationale

The City of Cranbrook claims that its East Hill boundary extension proposal is based on 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.” It is difficult to reconcile these goals with the current expansion proposal for two reasons:

1. 1.Published statistics show that in 2008, the City’s population was 18,947 people (BC Stats; see graph below), an increase of only 400 since 1994. Also, the City’s Official Community Plan states that the City had sufficient land with in its boundaries, before the most recent boundary expansion towards the St. Mary’s River, to accommodate an additional 14,000 people.
   

2. 2.The land in the proposed extension area is currently zoned “RR 60” in the Regional District of East Kootenay’s Cranbrook Rural Zoning bylaw. This designation sets a minimum parcel size for subdivision of 60 hectares (148 acres). By contrast, conditions of the City’s expansion proposal offer the current landowners up to 20 years of tax relief and financial encouragement to subdivide the lands into parcels larger than 20 ha (50 acres) (see Dollars and Cents below).
   

If exercised, this provision could potentially encourage fragmentation of the East Hill lands into 150 or more parcels with significant but unknown long term fiscal and development implications for the City.

Growth of the City of Cranbrook

The City claims that the expansion is needed to plan for future growth of the City. But here are the facts:

The graph below shows the population size of Cranbrook since 1976. You’ll note that since 1994, the population has remained relatively flat. In fact, population of Cranbrook in 2008 (18,947 people; Source: BC Stats) is an increase of only 400 residents since 1994.  For the history of housing demand, supply and population, click here (newly added Oct. 14/09.)

Interior Health Authority provided the following local health area projections for 2009-2014:

So, if our population has only increased by 400 people since 1994, and if we already have room to expand by at least another 14,000 residents within our existing boundaries, why the rush to more than double the size of our City?

Many residents are unaware that a Growth Management Study was recently prepared for the City by an outside consultant at a cost to tax-payers of $500,000. Even though this much-touted study may answer many questions about the costs, planning implications, servicing and infrastructure requirements, and even transportation and traffic implications of future growth of the City, City Council appears to be willing to proceed with more than doubling the City without this report. 

The Daily Townsman article of January 23, 2008 “Growth study tender awarded to Stantec” goes on to report “Priest said with work on the study starting in early February, the growth management study should be completed by the end of 2008 or very early in 2009.”    Another Daily Townsman article “Mayor optimistic for future” of January 22, 2009 quotes our current Mayor “A growth management plan focusing on the East Hill Boundary expansion should be ready by summer” he said.  Citizens for a Livable Cranbrook Society hoped that the Growth Management Study would be made available before we go to a referendum. In a letter from the City dated September 3, 2009 CLC was advised that the document will not be released publicly until “sometime after Christmas.”

Cranbrook City Council has not responded to questions about the availability of lands already within the city, other growth options, or the impacts of the proposed expansion on city residents.

The City’s Official Community Plan (page 8) states “By 2020 the population is 30-40,000 and continued strong growth is a reasonable probability.”   How did the City arrive at this figure?  Interior Health population growth projections show something quite different (click here.) 

In a letter dated March 20, 2008, from Ida Chong, Minister of Community Services regarding the first East Hill boundary extension, she stated “In particular, local governments are being encouraged to plan for land use patterns that increase density in existing urban areas.”

Check out Google Earth to look at the available lands in Cranbrook for development.  Perhaps there is another way that development can occur.  There are lots of models that can be considered.

When considering DENSITY figures being circulated by the Chamber of Commerce it is important to note that the 2006 census was before Wildstone and Shadow Mountain.  Kimberley, Fernie and Sparwood will have low densities because they have ski hills and mines within their city boundaries and you cannot build homes on mines, or ski hills proper.  The city of Kelowna has substantial agricultural lands within their boundaries (orchards and wineries.)  Those cities will therefore have lower densities than  Cranbrook as we have neither mines, large orchards/wineries, or ski hills within our boundaries.

Process

The proposed eastern boundary expansion process has been in the works for two years. But until now, the only opportunity for public input was two open house meetings that were hosted by the landowners in 2007. The City has had its application to expand its boundaries in with the Ministry of Community Services for almost two years, but it was only given approval to move ahead on July 14, 2009. By July 20, the issue was on City Council’s agenda. This is unprecedented speed for an issue of this magnitude.

In a letter from Ida Chong, Minister of Community Services of March 20th , 2008 she stated:  “To meet the consultation criteria, municipalities are required to consult with extension area property owners and residents, the regional district and First Nations, and to report on those results as part of their proposal submissions.”  There has been no public consultation on the part of the City.  We wonder why?

As described in Section 86 of the Community Charter, the process now requires that City Council advertise its intentions to expand its boundaries with a legal notice in local newspapers once a week for two consecutive weeks.  The City has already met this requirement by advertising on a Friday of one week, and the following Monday.

The next step: ten percent of Cranbrook electors (or 1,475 people) were required to sign and submit an Elector Response expressing concern about the East Hill boundary expansion currently proposed by City Council under the “Alternative Approval Process.” The deadline for submission of these forms was set as 4:30 pm, August 27th, 2009.  (Click here for Democracy In Action.)

The City has only recently announced two open houses on this issue: July 29 and August 10.  There was neither opportunity for the public to make formal comment, nor were the City’s own Elector Response Forms available for people to fill out.

On August 26th at approximately 12:00 noon, several dozen people showed up in front of City Hall to deliver over 3,000 Elector Response Forms.  At that time the City advised they had approximately 500 forms.

Dollars and Cents

The City suggests that more than doubling the size of our community will not cost tax-payers anything. But let’s take a look at the facts.

The gross annual property taxes, (including school and hospital tax,) payable by the private properties that make up the proposed expansion area is $21,400.  When the school and hospital taxes are removed, the remaining taxes the City would receive would be $4,717.  The City is proudly stating that it will freeze those taxes at the current rural rates for a period of 20 years. This benefit would be extended to include subdivisions except where the new parcels are 50 acres or less in size.

But all of the costs for municipal services, including administration, fire protection, policing, garbage collection, snow removal, etc., in excess of the amount collected in taxes would become an expense to the city. The costs of this expansion process (AAP), and a referendum, and other review processes, would also be borne solely by tax-payers.  The AAP was only to cost “approximately $2,000” according to the Mayor.  We now know from the City that “the total cost of both the direct-to-home mailout and the  advertisement in the Townsman newspaper was $6,725.44.   This amount includes the Canada Post mailing costs, at $0.116 per mailout for 11,691 pieces, which was $1423.97, including tax.”  What is not included is this figure is the cost for staff time required to produce the double-sided mailout or the two page ad.

The City Council had a choice after receiving more than double the number of elector response forms to either retract the boundary extension application or defer it and provide more information to the citizens before going to referendum.  Council rejected the idea of waiting six months and went immediately to referendum.  The cost of the referendum is expected to be $37,000.

Even if the expansion lands were developed in the near future, the City has suggested that the developer will pay all the costs. In reality, developers pay Development Cost Charges (DCCs) to the City; these are intended to recover costs for infrastructure to serve new developments. Cranbrook’s current charge is $2,032 per residential lot—about half the amount recommended to (and rejected by) Council in 1998, and a fraction of the amount charged by other communities in the region. For example, Invermere charges $16,304 per residential lot, while Fernie charges $12,016.

It is important to remember that the Environmental Appeal Board has recently ordered the City of Cranbrook to fix the current sewage disposal system, a system which has not operated satisfactorily for years. This cost has not yet been determined, nor has the cost been determined for water and sewage demands of the new developments already approved or under application.

Alternatives to Immediate Expansion

The City is trying to suggest to its residents that the only way to manage the lands to the east is by adding them to the City. This is simply not true, and is only one option.

The lands in question could be left in the RDEK for now. The City of Cranbrook could work with the RDEK to put in place a land use policy to reserve these lands for future expansion. This is known as an “urban reserve.” If this occurred, there would be no danger of the lands being developed into 5 acre parcels like those in the Gold Creek area (which were subdivided before the RDEK came into being and zoning was established). We believe that this option, and others, should be explored and discussed before proceeding with the current proposal.

If growth really was imminent, the City does have an option which it does not want to talk about: the City and the Regional District of East Kootenay collaborated in about 1987 to put land aside on the West Hill area—which is currently outside the City — to accommodate up to 8,500 people. It is also worth noting that since the City’s OCP was signed, two new recreational developments now under construction (Wildstone and Shadow Mountain) would accommodate approximately 3,000 more units.

We encourage everyone to check out Google Earth and take a tour of Cranbrook to see just how much undeveloped land actually exists within our current boundaries. 

DEMOCRACY IS NOT A SPECTATOR SPORT

The only way for all Cranbrook residents to have a voice in their future is for the City to participate in a referendum on this important issue.  We are awaiting the decision of Council on the matter of whether a referendum will be held or not.