Pages

Monday, January 21, 2013

Councillor Davis and Municipal Infrastructure


It is interesting that in today’s Council package there is a motion from Councillor Davis concerning how Council representatives deal with their responsibilities on the Regional District Board.  His concern appears to be around two decisions endorsed by Council’s representatives.
https://cranbrook.civicweb.net/Documents/DocumentList.aspx?ID=2758

One decision concerned the expression of dissatisfaction with the infrastructure funding levels provided by the Federal Government for Municipal projects.

The other decision concerned the rejection by our two representatives of the creation by the Province of the resort municipality of Jumbo.

Davis bases his motion on the fact that at no time were these issues discussed as a topic of Council deliberations and yet both issues have community wide interest.

In the Tyee on January 21st Andrew MacCleod states in the eight hopes for the next BC Government,


Infrastructure upgrades. The Union of B.C. Municipalities is the umbrella group for local governments in the province. President Mary Sjostrom stressed the organization is non-partisan but will have the same requests regardless of who wins the May election.
"Certainly infrastructure for our members is our number one priority," said Sjostrom. There is a new federal plan coming in 2014, which will bring together the three levels of government and it needs to have dedicated funds for local infrastructure, she said.
There is also a need for local governments to have the ability to raise money for all the things they now do, she said. "You've heard us many times say services have been increased beyond the traditional utilities and roads," she said.
Ways the province allows local governments to raise money have not, however, changed, she said. "The revenue today we rely on has remained the same over the last 50 years."

When 140 of BC’s mayors met in September of 2012, on the topic of infrastructure the BC Mayors’ Caucus endorsed the following statement:

“We agree that our communities require immediate action to provide stable, predictable, long term infrastructure funding from federal and provincial governments, to meet municipal needs as defined by each community’s priorities. This statement affirms and complements the efforts of UBCM and FCM to address the infrastructure needs of communities to ensure social, economic and environmental well-being.”


On Friday January 11th it was reported in the Townsman, ‘MLA expresses frustration with local government’, that our MLA Bill Bennett was putting out the call to Council to stop asking the province for more money. In his talk with reporters he listed many items, including infrastructure. 

It is not as though any of these items are new.  It is not as though MLA Bennett has not been involved in discussions.  It is not as though Councillor Davis has not heard or been part of UBCM, or Council table discussions involving planning and priority setting.  It is not as though local politicians are not aware of current financial constraints but that does not mean priorities need to be abandoned or frustration should be cause to give up. 

It would appear Councillor Davis is both out of step with many local residents and also the majority of Municipally Elected Officials.

2 comments:

  1. I would prefer that City Council does have discussions around RDEK issues which affect Cranbrook. I'm surprised actually that this is not common practice, particularly given this Council's over the top concern about public consultation and open dialogue. Surely they can find time in the 2-hour marathon meetings.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I know I was chocked when our two votes on the RDEK Council affirmed the motion to turn the decision regarding Jumbo to our Provincial Government. At that time, (I believe it was 2009) Mayor Manjak and Councillor Schsneider who were our 2 reps voted for the province to make this important decision. Certainly their voting pattern did NOT reflect the view and wishes of the people of Cranbrook. I believe our present representatives should be voting to reflect the wishes of the constituents they serve.

    ReplyDelete