Saturday, October 12, 2013

Annexation Ranchlands and the Crowsnest Pass

The following story appears in this week's Nanton News written by Sheena Read.
I have provided a few quotes from the story if you wish to read the rest it is available at the following link.

Ranchland brings in experts for annexation issue

Chief Administrative Officer Greg Brkich said Klauer hadn’t heard about the Crowsnest bid for annexation of Ranchland area before he had contacted her, but after she researched it, she told Brkich she’d “gotten a real good laugh out of it.”
“It seems that everyone who hears about it gets a good laugh out of it. But for some reason, the Crowsnest Pass doesn’t seem to be laughing,” said Davis.

The Ranchland letter stated that if the annexation occurs, the Municipality of Crowsnest Pass (MCP) is also requiring Ranchland transfer $200,000 per year for five years to the MCP to cover the cost of servicing the proposed annexation area prior to any new potential tax revenue being realized. 

“The MCP proposes that the MD of Ranchland raise its mill rate on linear, commercial, and machinery and equipment to pay for this transfer of funds. In other words, tax the Ranchland ratepayers to subsidize the MCP,” the letter stated.
Ranchland council and administration has stated that the annexation proposal does not meet its mandate to act in the best interests of its ratepayers.


Anonymous said...

Who's side are you on Dean? Sounds like you should be running in Ranchlands. Was your council involved in any attempt to get money out of these guys? That's what Decoux said the other night. Who cares what Ranchlands thinks anyway? They got nothing but money and no people.

Anonymous said...

Its pretty simple when and if there is actually a mine that is actually going to happen you start to proceed. Don't worry there will be a ton of time if it happens. In the meantime there is no need for people that KNOW they will not be around be allowed to leave a bomb waiting for the councel that will replace them Will be more honest to negotiate then to try and steal your neighbors land and ask them to pay you.

Anonymous said...

Annexation Principles 2013 (linked on this page)

Annexation applications should include information to show how the following considerations have been addressed:
1. Intermunicipal cooperation.
2. Accommodation of growth by all municipalities.
3. Recognition of local autonomy.
4. Land requirement considerations such as
Growth projections,
Available lands within the current boundaries,
Density levels,
The variety of land uses, and
Reasonable growth options.
5. Logical extension of growth patterns, transportation and infrastructure servicing.
6. Cost effective, efficient and coordinated approach to the administration of services.
7. Sensitivity and respect for key environmental and natural features.
8. Alignment with statutory plans, infrastructure plans, and economic development plans.
9. Financial impact on the initiating and the responding municipalities.
10. Agency consultation.
11. Reasonable solutions to impacts on property owners and citizens.
12. Public and landowner consultation process.
13. Justification for suggested intermunicipal revenue sharing/compensation.
14. Rationale to establish the annexation is not simply a tax initiative.
15. Conditions of annexation that are certain, unambiguous, enforceable and time specific.

CNP will have trouble with #14 since Bruce has repeatedly blabbed that it's just a tax grab.

Anonymous said...

Bruce likes dramatic gestures, especially if someone else is footing the bill. With his communications skills, he can lead us down the long and windy road full of high paid lawyers, consultants and PR specialists. He would like to be in the thick of it, if we are willing to pay for it, with the ever increasing taxes. The mine will announce Tuesday they are starting their work, and it will take several years before they even know there will be a mine in development. Bruce will drive us into the poorhouse before this happens

Anonymous said...

Premise A: if tax revenue gained from Ranchland's annexation is required for CNP's viability, then the mayor has played into the dissolution hand
Premise B: if annexing our neighbor is such a good idea, well then let's shoot for the stars and annex Montana!

Anonymous said...

The Annexation Principles above are a summary of precedent decisions of the Municipal Government Board, "an independent and impartial quasi-judicial board". They are designed to accommodate urban growth. Bruce's plan is obviously just a tax grab and does not jibe with several of these principles, so it would have a hard time getting through the MGB.

I think the Tories have $ $ign$ in their eye$ and are keen to have a mining-friendly municipality in south Ranchland. But it would be politically and legally awkward to interfere with a quasi-judicial board.

That's where this new (2013) "Viability Study" thing comes in. It does not necessarily mean "dissolution", it could be a way of doing an "end run" around the MGB. Annexation by another name.

The M7 could request a Viability Study at their final Council meeting.

Anonymous said...

This is all good, there is nothing wrong in strategizing and pursuing the annexation, as long as you have a responsible person keeping track of costs.

Our Mayor is not this person.

There is a very costly fight between Edmonton and the County of Leduc. The Board will make a decision after several years of very expensive fight.

By now, there should have been a public consultation in CNP, it did not take place because you would need a mature analysis of costs and benefits.

If you don't have a mature conversation with your community, you can stand there and promise,during an election, that anexation will bring us 10 million dollars , or more. This is not how you consult with your community.

Anonymous said...

The timing of the Mine Open House forum is suspicious. By the time the mine is proven up, the watershed issues will be in the forefront, and the Sierra Club and associated organizations will have mobilized to diss the mine. Water is the key and that area needs protection from mining. Selenium issue like in the Elk River will make the mining environmental needs too expensive. The "Solution to pollution is dilution" concept will not work here. This even though I support the mine(s). Water is the new oil.

Annexation is a pipe dream and a complete waste of time and resources. We best not rely on these proposed mines and best get on with the recreation part. Thunder in the Valley is a start, ready to be capitalized on. Bringing Lethbridge in to do a fireworks show is another spinhead idea by the mayor. He has got to go.

Anonymous said...

Imagine Lethbridge doing a jamboree here for us, just because our Mayor had an, off the record, conversation with someone from the Exhibition Board. This man does no live in the real world. Is Lethbridge going to bring their volunteers with them?

We could not keep the Symphony on the Mountain with Lethbridge Symphony because of the lack of money and volunteers. Jerry Lonsbury is well aware of this and you'd think he would explain this to his pal Bruce.

Next thing you will see Bruce claiming he brought in the mine and, therefore, we need to elect him to lead the annexation.

With his business skills, think Medican and Best Western, he will lead us right over the cliff with his pompous promises.

Anonymous said...

"Imagine Lethbridge doing a jamboree here for us, just because our Mayor had an, off the record, conversation with someone from the Exhibition Board. This man does no live in the real world. Is Lethbridge going to bring their volunteers with them?"

Didn't Bruce say at the debate they were going to pay us to let them put this on?