Click on images to enlarge |
| The structural work for this concept plan has been completed. Lane line design has not been finalized pending review by the traffic engineer. Landscaping, tree planting, signage and the picnic area will be the responsibility of the City. |
"to create attractive, impact full entrances to the City"
As is normal with any major project, consultation and research has taken place with many stakeholders including Rocky Mountain Naturalists and Ducks Unlimited. The area has the potential to include a wheelchair accessible informational kiosk for business listings, maps and wildlife information, picnic tables, landscaping and hopefully a new Welcome to Cranbrook sign. Columbia Basin Trust has granted the City $50,000 but in order to fully complete the project another $60,000 has been proposed to come out of the budget surplus. As is normal with any major project, City staff and administration pull together the information necessary on which to base a final decision. It is now up to Council to decide whether to accept the full extent of improvements or to do less.
 |
| The newly located Centennial Cairn |
 |
| The re-graded and flat area above will hopefully house an informational kiosk with business listings, maps and other tourist information. |
 |
| The 'loop' as it looks now. Once the snow has gone it will be seen that landscaping and bank stabilisation plantings will need to be installed. |
I remain concerned that the City's commitment to this project may double as a result of design changes proposed by other stakeholders. This issue requires more discussion at Council and I do not think that additional pictures should alter the concerned tone of Councillors who should rightfully question how this happened and how the project ought to proceed. I DO want the project complete but why am I as a taxpayer on the hook for the entire cost overrun. This is not a trivial question.
ReplyDeleteA concerned citizen called me last week and suggested that I read the Citizens for a Liveable Cranbrook’s blog. He said the CLC had written about the concerns that Councillor Davis and I had voiced with regard to the west visitors’ entrance and the approved budget amount. The blog went on to say that “it was difficult to understand why Councillors Davis and Pallesen stated they knew nothing of 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 taxpayers’ money and she said she could not support this.” That is because the CLC has seen the whole plan but Councillors, Davis, Scott & I hadn’t and to date (Feb. 4, 2013), still haven’t. The Plan has never been presented to council for comments or approval.
ReplyDeleteI AM aware that we carried a 2012 surplus forward. I was NOT aware until the January 24th budget meeting that the city had made application to Columbia Basin Trust for a $50,000 grant and that confirmation of this funding was received on Dec. 12, 2012 from CBT. A note worth taking is these funds were granted based on the City of Cranbrook’s application showing we had allocated $121,000 cash to this project. Until the budget meeting on Jan. 24th, 2013 I had absolutely no idea that this project was going to cost $211,000, which is $151,000 more than we had ever discussed or approved at council.
During my last term as councillor, I and the rest of that council were slammed for not governing with transparency by the Citizens for a Liveable Cranbrook the entire time we were in council. What’s happening now is exactly what we were ACCUSED of but DID NOT do.
I DO NOT object to beautifying our wonderful city, including enhancing visitors’ first impressions of the west entrance. We have heard and read many times the word “ugly” when describing Cranbrook – that is their word... not mine, to describe our home. The fact that Cranbrook is belittled infuriates me! Nonetheless, there is process that we, as city councillors must follow and clearly this was not the case.
On Friday, Feb. 1, I was asked once again to check the CLC blog. I was totally confused when I saw that the first item was a concept plan for the west entrance - dated June 2012! The blog went on to say that the city had been in talks with the Ministry of Transportation & Infrastructure and had “jointly with the City agreed on the concept plan”.
To my knowledge, this Concept Plan has not come before council or the details that the CLC spoke about in their blog. I am very concerned that the Citizens for a Liveable Cranbrook are getting information before the whole of council.
This is not an issue on the validity of the project. This is a very worthwhile project and everyone in the city of Cranbrook will benefit from it as well as visitors to our area. This issue is about the process...and the use of public monies. There are many great and necessary projects that will involve the City, but as elected by the citizens of Cranbrook, we need to ensure that we move forward with a tight and transparent process.
Although council was not asked for a Supporting Resolution of Council Authorizing the Grant Submission, I feel this is part of the transparent process we have been elected to follow when considering taxpayers’ funds.
Also, why would the Citizens for a Liveable Cranbrook have information before it has been presented to council?
Councillor Denise Pallesen
In response to Councillor Pallesen - the answer is very simple. We were curious after the budget discussion and so we went and asked to see the plan at the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure. I would hope Councillor Pallesen is not implying that anyone within City Hall would be complicit in sharing private information. There is nothing on this plan that has not been complete since last November and anyone was free to go and see both the plan and the work completed so far in a project approved of by Council and which was reported on in The Townsman and on this blog last fall.
DeleteCouncillor Pallesen’s reply of February 4, 2013 states “That is because the CLC has seen the whole plan but Councillors, Davis, Scott & I hadn’t and to date (Feb. 4, 2013), still haven’t.” Had Councillor Pallesen widened her circle of enquiry and taken a moment to ask other Councillors if they had seen the concept drawing, instead of making public assumptions that we had, she would have found that I also had not seen it, which I mentioned last night.
DeleteCouncillor Pallesen states “I am very concerned that the Citizens for a Livable Cranbrook are getting information before the whole of Council” and “Also, why would the Citizens for a Liveable Cranbrook have information before it has been presented to council?” Nobody has received privileged information. Her statements cast aspersions on the rest of Council and I take considerable exception to that. Councillor Pallesen would be best served by gathering the facts before implying any wrong-doing.
Kudos to the CLC bloggers for taking considerable initiative in tracking down this public information through Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure and making it widely available.
I do believe that council only approved a $60,000 project and everyone has missed the point that the project is now costing over $200,000 and an initial $60,000 is required by the city. Councillor Pallesens concerns are that the City appears committed without council authorization of additional taxpayer funding. The additional funds are now being sought through the budget meetings from the 2012 surplus well after the City committed itself to its financial partners. A transparent process appears to not have been followed. No one is debating the merits of the project.
ReplyDeleteThanks to Ministry of Transportation, CBT, and others for their efforts on making the entrance a welcoming show-piece for our community. I trust staff with the City’s $60,000, and with leveraging it where necessary with grants, which is part of normal process. Should more taxpayer dollars be used to complete the project? That remains to be deliberated in our budget discussions.
ReplyDelete