Questions loom large after council meeting

Opinion

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 12/01/2023 (711 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

“Before you start some work, always ask yourself three questions: why am I doing it? What might the results be? And will I be successful? Only when you think deeply and find satisfactory answers to these questions, proceed.”

— Chanakya, ancient Indian philosopher and teacher

Paying for Growth, a special city council meeting held Tuesday night, was meant to be a meaningful exploration of the ways by which Brandon’s continued expansion will pay for itself. Rather, I had hoped it would be a meaningful exploration of such, but it wasn’t. Instead, it was more of a marketing pitch than a reasoned weighing of the pros and cons of continued outward expansion.

Part of the problem, I think, is that these were conceived of as public information sessions, but there was no consideration given to the public beyond mere admittance. I would know — I was in the audience.

The city’s plan for paying for growth works on the principle that we will charge a fee to developers for developing a site. That fee will be split into six reserve funds that are earmarked for upgrades and maintenance of the infrastructure in that area or offsite infrastructure purchases for future developments — like lift stations — and will not enter general funds.

That is to say that, at present, the city pays for the installation, upgrades and staffing out of general funds but the revenue directly derived from these fees can not be used for anything except funding current and future expansion. We were assured that this will happen, but we were shown no projections, given no basis for belief beyond some slides of teeter-totters and nothing more substantial than their say-so. None of the underlying questions were really acknowledged, let alone addressed.

In this sense, I felt more like I was sitting in on a marketing pitch — a pitch for a scheme built upon multiple levels of investment with the new money acting as funding for the old commitments.

I wanted to ask what will happen if new investment isn’t sufficient to keep the fund going. Is there a fail-safe envisioned should this money, unsubstantiated assurances aside, fail to manifest in large and regular enough amounts to sustain it?

There is a maxim in gambling and investment: “don’t put in more than you can afford to lose.” Can Brandon afford to lose in excess of $30 million if hopes aren’t realized? I don’t know, they didn’t say.

Another question unaddressed is how much we are going to have to borrow for future developments and related expenses while the fund grows. The fund only grows with development and, as a result, won’t amount into anything meaningful for years yet. How many years? I don’t know, they didn’t say.

Those are just two of the large, looming questions that have, thus far, been overlooked. But here is a smaller, though equally pressing one. How much will this development cost in terms of increased demands on soft infrastructure? By soft infrastructure, I mean fire and ambulance (already underfunded and struggling), police (already underfunded and struggling), refuse collection/disposal and the like. Here I turn to Winnipeg.

In an article dated Jan. 6, Cameron Maclean of the CBC reported that Winnipeg’s budget deficit this year will be $69.6 million, up from $56.8 million, owing in large part to snow removal costing more than anticipated.

Architect and occasional Winnipeg Free Press columnist Brent Bellamy linked to this article on Twitter and pointed out that snow removal has gone $52 million over budget and that if Winnipeg had grown geographically at a pace relative to population increase, they would be clearing snow from one-third less land area.

Let’s put this into a Brandon context. With growth comes hidden costs, like snow removal, and I saw no evidence in the Tuesday meeting that this has been factored into the projections, though in truth I didn’t see any cost projections about anything beyond debt servicing of the initial $30 million.

We’ve already seen 180 per cent geographic growth in five years against five per cent population growth, according to Economic Development Brandon. That is land that needs garbage and snow cleared, it needs police and ambulance — if for no reason other than the excess accidents the planned access will cause. How much is the city committing to spend on the soft infrastructure that this ceaseless expansion will cost year on year, and how will it be funded? I don’t know, they didn’t say.

This was not the cheapest option, nor the most convenient topographically, and the cost has increased by more than $2 million every year that this has been being considered. Further, taking the city planners at their word, this carries significant risk — risk the city has no stated means of mitigating nor a plan for responding to it if anything less than ideal occurs.

The system as presented seems designed to maximize the city’s exposure. Given that and other obvious red flags on this development — approving an access that the city knows will cause injuries, for instance — there is one inescapable question outshining all others. Why is this one development worth the cost in money and the literal blood of Brandonites when other, presumably cheaper and easier, options exist?

I don’t know. They didn’t say.