During this part of budget talks the West Entrance
project came up for discussion. It was
agreed by Council in 2012 that $60000 would be spent on upgrades to the West/
Elizabeth Lake Entrance to Cranbrook.
Highways came aboard with some money, as there was concern with the
current arrangement being difficult and unsafe for large rigs. Columbia Basin Trust also recently announced
a $50,000 grant. City staff has
researched the project extensively and has a plan to make this a showcase and
welcoming entrance to our city.
Recommendation 1 of the 1999 Revitalisation Plan was:
To create impact-full entrances to the City
Another $60,000 is required to fully implement this improvement
plan and part of the surplus might be an opportunity to see this project
completed. The Centennial cairn has
already been moved and roadworks have already been started, informational
kiosks are planned, as is a picnic area.
We posted pictures of the work in the fall of 2012 and the Townsman
featured an article about the project.
At the Budget meeting of January 29th it was difficult to understand why Councillors Davis
and Pallesen stated they knew nothing about the plan and it is equally
difficult to understand why Councillor Pallesen would be against seeing the
full plan through to completion.
Councillor Pallesen spoke against spending the extra $60,000, as it
seemed she felt this was not good use of taxpayer’s money and she said she could not support this. A vote has not yet been taken. As the city, with the help from many
businesses has been making a great deal of effort to improve its image in the
last few years it would be a shame not to make this project as stunning as
possible, to make a great first impression on visitors to Cranbrook and to
demonstrate pride in our city.
I was in the Council Chamber last night and heard concerns from Councillor Pallesen regarding the funding process for the West Entrance that are missing from the authors post. Our Council approved $60,000 for the West Entrance project last year, yesterday Council was told that an additional $60,000 would be required to complete the project as other stakeholders had supplied funding to enhance the project. Where the concern arises, in my opinion, is that at no time was Council informed of these changes to the original plan, changes that I think everyone appreciates but were not agreed to in the original funding agreement. If Council does not agree to the additional funding then the entire project is at stake. Since when did we as a citzens agree to projects that included leverage, however well-intentioned? A great impression is what is desired here but not at the expense of an undemocratic process.
ReplyDeleteWhat was the original cost estimate of the project or improvement plan? is the new $60,000 required due to cost overrunns? I don't think anyone is against beautification, but if this project is exceeding its original budget there should be some explanation.
ReplyDeleteSo which is it blog authors....did the Councillors you claim not know about the project like you indicate...or were they unaware that more money was needed to complete the project than originally intended. If so I would expect a correction in your post
ReplyDeleteLooking forward to your answer
I'm concerned that so much debate occurred regarding Council's use of discretionary funds (previously without seeming to follow any guidelines) and now that a Councillor chooses not to rubber stamp a serious and significant unbudgeted item she is being villified by the author of this blog. She seems to be applying some prudent thought to the matter and taking a responsible approach with my tax dollars. Thank you Councillors Pallesen and Davis.
ReplyDeleteI am constantly at a loss to understand why posts are included here from individuals to hide behind the word " Anonymous "
ReplyDeleteIf you have a comment, and strongly believe in its contents, why not disclose your true identity?
The reality is that this is a small town and there are many who fear repercussion if they speak their mind. As long as comments do not use inappropriate language or use personal attack we welcome the discussion and opinion. We believe it is through all viewpoints coming to the table that better long term decisions are made.
DeleteI totally agree with Joseph Plonka that true identities should be required. Historically in newspapers, the real name of letter to the editor writers was required as well as contact information to confirm identities. I also disagree with respect that "better long term decisions" are made when identities are hidden. And what repercussions might there be in a free, open and democratic society. Your comment is to say the least frightening.
DeleteSorry, but I do not get it. What have we become in this City??
ReplyDeleteYou cannot speak your mind - fear of repurcussions?
Sad, it truly is.
"The Only Thing Necessary for the Triumph of Evil is that Good Men Do Nothing" --- attributed to Edmund Burke. And when we remain anonymous, in effect, we are doing nothing. I am sure we do not want to risk the possibility of the "triumph of evil" in Cranbrook by fearing "repercussions". Mr Plonka poses a valid question, "What have we become..."
ReplyDelete